Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Rural Public Bodies

Jim Cunningham: What estimate she has made of the staff cost of the merger of English Nature, the Countryside Agency and the Rural Development Service as proposed by the rural delivery review; and if she will make a statement.

Margaret Beckett: In my statement on 11 November, I announced my intention to create an integrated agency that would incorporate elements of the work of English Nature, the Countryside Agency and the Rural Development Service where those functions would most enable the agency to reflect its new remit. Plans for setting up the agency, including arrangements for transferring staff, are now being developed. I hope to give more details in the spring.

Jim Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply, but has she received any extra moneys for the agency, given its new functions?

Margaret Beckett: Sadly, no. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the functions are not new. We are considering ideas about a different method of organising the way in which we carry out the functions that the Department and its different agencies exercise.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Given the importance of the organisations in an area such as Somerset where we have a national park, areas of outstanding natural beauty and a coastline that is second to none, does the Secretary of State believe that amalgamating them into a bureaucratic machine of such size and complexity will maintain the parts of Britain that matter most? Will not a muddle of interference from Government and bureaucrats ensue?

Margaret Beckett: We are anxious to ensure that we reduce the current bureaucracy and complexity. The House will appreciate that we have an arrangement of agencies and responsibilities that DEFRA inherited from the Departments from which it was created. It is our goal—I have made it the Department's top priority—to reduce, for example, the complexity of schemes, forms, bureaucracies and inspections to which Lord Haskins rightly drew attention in his report.

Tom Levitt: A couple of weeks ago, I visited Cressbrookdale in my constituency with officers from English Nature. It is an isolated valley that is home to a unique combination of flora as well as 250,000 visitors every year. I witnessed English Nature's work on the ground. It has a varied and wide function and I should like—I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees—all its functions in rural and urban areas to be maintained. May I put in a word for the maintenance of all its functions and for the leadership of English Nature to play a main role in future operations?

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's question, not least because it enables me to put on the record how highly the Department values the work and reputation of English Nature. He is right to urge his case, which falls on willing ears. We want to preserve all that is best and valued that has been built up in English Nature and ascertain how best that expertise and experience can be used to maintain a truly independent voice on behalf of those interests.

James Clappison: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that English Nature is widely admired for its high quality and especially for its independent advice not only in the Department but many other quarters? Independence is a good thing, is it not?

Margaret Beckett: It certainly is. We did not accept 100 per cent. of Lord Haskins's recommendations, which included the abolition of the Countryside Agency, because we believed that there was merit in preserving that independent voice on behalf of rural interests. We strongly value the independence of the bodies and wish to maintain it.

Michael Meacher: I am glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that. As she said, it is essential to maintain an independent voice on behalf of wildlife and the natural environment because both remain under intense pressure from road building, ports development, house building and chemical agriculture. Does she also accept that making environmental protection subordinate to farming and rural development is contrary to the Curry commission's recommendations, which the Government accepted, and to DEFRA's advocacy of sustainable agriculture?

Margaret Beckett: Fortunately, there is no intention of doing any such thing. I emphasise to my right hon. Friend that we value the interests and concerns that he mentioned. I hope that he and others who have great experience and expertise will continue to scrutinise and comment and pass on the benefits of their experience as we develop the new agency. I am mindful that although there is great regard for English Nature, when it was set up after its predecessors were abolished there was great public anxiety, which it has managed to come through to establish a powerful reputation. There is no reason why we cannot build on that expertise, create bodies and a pattern of agencies that work with the Department and preserve the independence and value that exist in the current structures, but without some of the duplication and bureaucracy.

Caroline Spelman: Tom Burke, a council member of English Nature and a former adviser to the Prime Minister, called Lord Haskins's proposals to subsume English Nature into a single huge rural agency "an act of barbarism" amounting to
	"selling the biodiversity police to the agricultural mafia".
	There is a real risk that Britain's endangered species may lose a champion. We heard what the Secretary of State said, but will she be more specific? Will she spell out what safeguards she will establish to ensure that English Nature retains what she describes as its independent voice?

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Lady should look more carefully at what I said when the Haskins report was published. I remind her that we intend to produce a much more detailed response than that preliminary, interim response to the arrival of the document in the public domain. We will do that in the spring.
	I am familiar with the comments quoted by the hon. Lady. I had the impression that the Conservatives held the agricultural mafia in high regard, but never mind. Of course, her remarks come from someone who regrets the Department's creation, and clearly prefers the isolationism of a purely environmental role. I do not share that view, but I respect and understand the fears that have been expressed and we shall do all that we can to ensure that they are not realised.

Rural Payments Agency

Gordon Prentice: What steps she is taking to reduce the time taken by the Rural Payments Agency to make payments.

Alun Michael: The RPA is undertaking a change programme due to deliver in 2005–06. The programme is the cornerstone of DEFRA's strategy for achieving 95 per cent. electronic service delivery capability for common agricultural policy schemes. It will reduce the average time taken by a claimant to complete a CAP claim. All valid claims submitted electronically will be paid within two weeks of the start of the payment window, or three weeks from receipt where no payment window exists.

Gordon Prentice: It is reassuring to hear about the change programme, and I wish the Minister well, but some claims are taking for ever to process. The Rural Payments Agency compensates food manufacturers for the difference between European Union and world sugar prices. That may be all very well for manufacturers making a million Mars bars a day, but for specialists making assorted biscuits, with a wide product range that is constantly changing, the complexities of the system are truly daunting. Is the Minister aware of the problem, and would he be willing to meet me along with representatives of the interests that are being crushed by this bureaucracy?

Alun Michael: I shall be happy to meet my hon. Friend. I am aware of the complexities of the programme, but it is worth mentioning that £750 million has been paid to farmers in the last month under livestock and arable schemes, at the opening of the relevant payment windows. We are significantly improving performance in a number of ways. I know that there were some teething problems when the RPA's new integrated system "Oregon Live" went live on 25 October, but I think that that too will help to improve the agency's record.

Michael Fabricant: The Minister has not really answered his hon. Friend's question. He rightly encourages diversity in farming. The biscuit manufacturer mentioned by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) is typical of those in many small industries: he used to be a farmer, and his biscuits are home-baked. He has a wide range of not only biscuits, but sweets and chocolates. The trouble is that a lot of forms must be filled in, one for each line. That may be easy enough when 10 million Mars bars are involved, as the hon. Gentleman said, but those who make products in small numbers must fill in a different form for each one. How can the Minister aggregate the system to encourage the diversity in farming that both he and Conservative Members want?

Alun Michael: We are enthusiastic about simplifying everything that can be simplified, but we must meet the requirement under European legislation to account for public money going to those producers. We are always happy to look at industry's suggestions on ways in which things can be simplified, but we must meet those requirements.

Owen Paterson: IACS—integrated administration and control scheme—forms have to be submitted in April and May, but the RPA's customers sometimes find that there are serious payment problems many months later, after evidence may have been harvested. Can the Minister guarantee that all IACS forms will be validated by late summer so that farmers are not hit by unexpected cash-flow problems later in the year?

Alun Michael: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. As he knows, giving a guarantee is always unwise in this business, so I urge him to seek guarantees only when they can realistically be given.
	In 2003–04, the Rural Payments Agency has a target to pay 80 per cent. of all valid non-IACS claims within 28 days of the claim becoming processable, and all claims within EU deadlines or, in their absence, 60 days. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about complexities and timing, and we are always willing to look at specific problems that arise as part of the change programme that I referred to earlier. I am happy to look at his specific points but we must achieve the work output within the requirements of the common agricultural policy systems.

Fishing Industry (Scotland)

Michael Weir: When she last met Scottish Executive Ministers to discuss the future of the Scottish fishing industry.

Ben Bradshaw: I discussed the future of the Scottish fishing industry extensively with my Scottish Executive colleague, Ross Finnie, before, during and after a Fisheries Council meeting in Brussels earlier this week. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is holding a video conference with Mr. Finnie later today.

Michael Weir: I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware that haddock stocks are at their highest level for 30 years. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation has proposed seeking the decoupling of haddock and cod to preserve cod but allow the continued fishing of the more abundant stocks of other white fish species. Will the Minister take that point on board, reject any deal at the December Fisheries Council that includes cuts in haddock quotas and ensure that Scotland's fishermen can continue to catch Scotland's premier fish?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, I have already taken that point on board, as have my officials, and we raised it with the Commission and its officials in the run-up to the December Council. The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about haddock, but other stocks are also in good shape. One has to be cautious about one single year of haddock, but he is right. I do not want any decisions at the December council on cod, which are necessary because of the state of cod stocks, to have a negative impact on the ability of Scottish fishermen or, indeed, fishermen in the rest of the UK, to catch fish of which there are healthy stocks.

Frank Doran: May I wish my hon. Friend well in the arduous discussions that he is about to embark on? It is the first time that he has done this, and I hope that he finds time to buy his Christmas presents, because he may find that it is in short supply.
	The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) mentioned the Scottish Fishermen's Federation submission. I had some contact with its representatives in Brussels, and they were getting negative responses from the Council officials, which is a matter of concern. It is important that the Minister takes that on board. Finally, I am conscious of the fact that there is no business statement today, so perhaps he can tell us when he expects the annual fisheries debate to take place this year.

Ben Bradshaw: I spoke to my hon. Friend about that yesterday, and I am still awaiting an answer from the usual channels. I hope that the debate will be held in the normal way. As for his first question, the arguments are difficult, and are being made only now as a result of the dichotomy between the state of cod stocks and other fish caught in the mixed fishery. We have to carry on trying to persuade the Commission, and I appeal even at this stage for any more evidence of the ability through technical measures or special zonal measures to carry on fishing prawns and haddock without damaging cod stocks. We will continue to make that argument, and I hope that we will make it successfully when decisions are made at the December Council.

Andrew George: Does the Minister agree that those who claim that we can unilaterally withdraw from the common fisheries policy are engaged in creating an irresponsible diversion and perpetrating a cruel hoax on desperate fishing communities? Does he agree that although we can all agree that the common fisheries policy has failed our fishermen, fishing communities and fish stocks, the most recent reforms were monumentally timid, and that we cannot wait another 20 years before we tackle this again? Does he therefore agree that the UK should now take the lead, grab the issue by the scruff of the neck, go back to the drawing board, and acknowledge that the centralised basis of the common fisheries policy should be scrapped and replaced with a robust, devolved, proper regional management structure?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes. The hon. Gentleman is right and speaks with great expertise on such matters, representing as he does one of the major fishing areas in the south-west of England. He is right about the foolhardiness of the suggestion that we should leave the common fisheries policy. I am sorry that his view is not shared by all his Liberal Democrat colleagues or, indeed, by the tartan Tories—the Scottish nationalists—or the real Conservatives. It would be disastrous not only for our fishing industry, but for the whole UK economy. I share his vision of the future that he mapped out for the fishing industry.

Ann Winterton: In his response to my recent Adjournment debate on the demise of the cod stocks in the British sector, the Minister stated:
	"CFP measures represent the best and . . . only possible route to address the problems that we face."—[Official Report, 11 November 2003; Vol. 413, c. 265.]
	Does that mean that he is committed simply to increasing the dosage of past poisonous medicines, or is he prepared to look at successful alternative management systems such as those in the Faroe Islands?

Ben Bradshaw: We are always keen to consider alternative management systems. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) suggested some constructive ones—it would help if the hon. Lady were occasionally to do the same. If she is repeating her call for our withdrawal from the common fisheries policy, that is a foolhardy suggestion, because she knows very well that that would mean our withdrawing from the European Union. If she thinks that she could renegotiate a better deal with all the countries that she had annoyed—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should let the Minister answer.

Ben Bradshaw: I am afraid that if the hon. Lady and her colleagues seriously believe that they could tear up all the European Union treaties and renegotiate better deals with all those individual countries—and Iceland, the Faroes and Norway—they are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Biofuels

Norman Lamb: If she will make a statement on the impact of the development of a biofuels industry on the rural economy.

Elliot Morley: Our assessments indicate that if the UK met the reference target in the EU biofuels directive for the substitution of 5.75 per cent. of fossil fuels by biofuels by 2010, that could create or sustain up to 6,000 jobs in the agriculture sector. It would imply production from up to 1 million hectares of land, taking into account the contribution from waste cooking oil.

Norman Lamb: I am pleased that the Minister recognises the potential beneficial impact of the biofuels industry on the rural economy, as well as on the environment in meeting our Kyoto targets. Will he encourage the Chancellor to take the opportunity in his pre-Budget report to end the ludicrous situation whereby the duty reduction on liquefied petroleum gas—LPG—fossil fuel is double that on bioethanol and biodiesel? Surely, that must come to an end.

Elliot Morley: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, he should bear in mind the 20p per litre reduction on biofuels. On top of that, there is an additional payment for farmers who grow biofuel crops, and they gain extra advantages from being able to grow biofuel crops on set-aside land. Switching to biofuel crops has a range of advantages that do not apply to LPG. The argument for the differential on LPG relates to the fitting of LPG equipment at garages and of conversion, which have considerable costs that do not apply to biodiesel and biofuel vehicles. Nevertheless, I shall certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's point in mind.

David Taylor: The existing rate of duty derogation of 20p a litre has clearly been insufficient to stimulate domestic production. The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, of which I am a member, has described the Government's biofuel policy as muddled and unfocused. If that is true, will the Minister tell us how the muddle can be clarified and the impact sharpened in the near future?

Elliot Morley: That is not necessarily a fair description. We have taken note of what the Select Committee report has said, and we take it seriously, as we do all its reports. It has made a very helpful contribution to this debate. There is no doubt that the current duty cut has stimulated the use of biodiesel, in particular, from the use of waste oils. That has been quite beneficial, but we need to examine whether the amount of duty cut is appropriate. We also need to consider the whole ecological footprint of the industry, to see whether such cuts are, in the end, justified.

Keith Simpson: The Minister will be aware of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report on biofuels, one of whose conclusions was that it was disappointed that there appeared to be no sole Department taking the lead on this issue. We know that there are various interests involved, but the fact that five major Departments or organisations are involved without having one lead Department obviously means that biofuels are not getting the attention that they deserve. Will the Minister tell us whether, as a consequence of the Select Committee report, one Department has now been nominated as the lead Department to deal with biofuels?

Elliot Morley: That is not the situation at the moment. As the hon. Gentleman rightly stated, a number of Departments and a wide range of issues, including energy, fuels and transport, are involved. Biofuels are a matter of major interest for DEFRA, and we spend a lot of time discussing the issue. We understand the reasoning behind the Select Committee's recommendations, and we are considering its report, of which we will take careful note.

David Chaytor: There is considerable frustration among drivers of diesel cars about the slow pace of development of biodiesel. Why is it possible to drive down to Devon and buy from a private supplier a load of fuel made from waste cooking oil, but not to go to a normal fuel station and buy biodiesel? Is it not the case that there are costs involved in developing the infrastructure for the use of biofuels, and that that is why the question of duty needs to be revisited?

Elliot Morley: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I was surprised by his comment that people cannot buy biodiesel in normal garages, because they can. The local garage in my village has a biofuel pump, and I make use of it myself. We want an extension of that availability and for the use of biofuels to be encouraged as an alternative to other fuels, particularly because of their contribution to climate change.

Common Agricultural Policy

David Cameron: What representations she has received about the implications of the common agricultural policy reform proposals for farmers who have diversified into non-subsidised activities; and if she will make a statement.

Margaret Beckett: We have received responses from a wide range of stakeholders to the public consultation on the options available to member states under the agreement on reforming the common agricultural policy. These have included farmers producing non-supported crops, many of whom support a scheme which redistributes subsidy, and other farmers, particularly in the livestock and dairy sectors, who support a scheme based on historic entitlements. An assessment has been made of the redistributive effects of a number of CAP direct aid payments, and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. A decision on the model for the single farm payment will be made as soon as possible.

David Cameron: While I thank the Secretary of State for that response, she will know that I have written to Ministers about my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Hobbs, and many others in my constituency who have diversified out of subsidised agriculture while maintaining their land, as Governments of all parties have encouraged them to do over the years. What would the Secretary of State say to their concern that, because they might not be eligible for single farm payments, the value of their land could fall? How tempted is she by the option of making payments on an area basis, and will she give a guarantee that there will be a full and proper debate in the House on this matter before a final decision is made?

Margaret Beckett: To pick up first the hon. Gentleman's final point, he will know that what happens with the business of the House is not a matter for me, although I heed what he says and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will also heed it. As the hon. Gentleman will have understood from my reply, we are receiving a range of responses to the consultation and people are highlighting, as he has on behalf of his constituents, a range of different concerns and interests. We shall look at all that very carefully, because we are anxious to get the maximum benefit for all in the community from this opportunity for reform.

Ian Cawsey: At a recent meeting I held with local farmers, they put to me the view that the options for CAP reform are too restrictive. In fact, there is a strong case for a hybrid approach under which there may be regionalisation for arable farmers, but an historic view may be taken on livestock based on the fact that one involves land area and the other headage. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that she will consider that issue going forward on this important reform?

Margaret Beckett: We are certainly getting a range of representations. I have to say to my hon. Friend that whether it is possible and practical to have a different regime for different methods of farming, particularly in this country where one may get mixed farming, is another matter, but it is a further interesting addition to the debate.

Douglas Hogg: Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) probably right to say that if subsidies are paid on an historic basis, that will give the recipients of such subsidies an unfair competitive advantage if they subsequently compete with those who historically have produced in the unsubsidised sectors of agriculture?

Margaret Beckett: Such an eventuality should not arise because it will not be possible to claim the single farm payment on land that has previously not attracted payment as it has been growing unsubsidised crops. I am sorry; I think I have got that the wrong way round, but I am saying to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he should look again at the scheme and the proposals: it is not open to subsidised people simply to move in and compete on the same basis with those who have, as he rightly says, established farming that is unsubsidised. It is also the case in respect of those who are going for a totally area-based system that there may be different rules in that regard. That is one of the facets of the decision that we have to take that we shall have to look at most carefully.

Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend will probably be aware that there are many fine examples of diversification schemes in the context of the most marginal areas of the country—for example, in the North York Moors national park. Often, not only the work of her Department, but that of the national parks themselves, helps those diversification projects to come forward. In the context of the review, what is she doing to ensure that that best practice is not lost in the larger national debate?

Margaret Beckett: I assure my hon. Friend that the last thing any of us wants to see is established best practice, whereby people have diversified and looked for markets that they can satisfy, to be lost in this transition. I see no reason to suppose that that is likely to be the case; indeed, we anticipate that it will create greater opportunities rather than fewer.

John Whittingdale: Does the Secretary of State accept that farmers who have diversified into the unsubsidised activity of potato growing are deeply concerned about the outbreak of potato ring rot? Given that a further three farms are under investigation, will she say what progress is being made in containing the disease and give an assurance that the plant health and seeds inspectorate, which is investigating the outbreak of four different diseases, has all the resources necessary to do so?

Margaret Beckett: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. I also welcome the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). I apologise for not welcoming her earlier; I intended to do so, but got sidetracked.
	Of course I understand that one of the many concerns of people who have moved into that unsubsidised sector is the emergence of a disease such as potato ring rot. My understanding—this is based on a report that I received yesterday; I have not had chance to update myself this morning—is that we are making quite good progress in tracking down any potential course of the disease. Obviously, like him we take it extremely seriously. It is also my understanding that we have the resources needed to tackle it, but I can assure him that I and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), are taking the greatest interest and are very aware of the concerns.

Watercourses (Silt Removal)

Andrew Selous: What her policy is regarding the removal of silt from watercourses in respect of the (a) European waste framework directive and (b) nitrate directive.

Elliot Morley: Neither the waste framework directive nor the nitrates directive applies to the removal of silt from watercourses. However, the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 control the application of dredged material to land and the Government have made use of their discretion under article 11 of the waste framework directive to provide licensing exemptions for dredgings from inland waters.

Andrew Selous: Flooding is a real concern to many of my constituents in their towns and villages. What advice would the Minister give to the Bedford group of drainage boards, among others, who wrote to me recently, as they believed that an increased risk of flooding would result from reduced dredging, which they think will happen when silt removed from watercourses cannot be sent to approved landfill sites after 2006?

Elliot Morley: In my experience, it is rare for a drainage board to send dredgings to landfill sites, so that should not have an effect. There has been some concern about whether traditional dredging methods, which leave spoil and vegetation along the side of dykes, will be restricted in some way. That will not be restricted. The regulations will prevent spoil from going to landfill, but the hon. Gentleman will find that that is a very unusual procedure in drainage. If there is a major problem, I shall be happy to speak to him and to look into it in further detail.

Anne Campbell: What advice is given to farmers about farming practice to avoid soil erosion, which causes rivers to silt up in the first place? Surely it is better to tackle the cause of silting, which leads to flooding, rather than to deal with the consequences afterwards.

Elliot Morley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. DEFRA produces codes of practice in relation to soil management. For the first time, as part of the changes to and reviews of our agri-environment programme, one aspect will be natural resource management, which will include soil management. In the changes to whole farm plans and audits, it is also possible that those examples of good agricultural practice can be looked at in further detail in terms of how we apply them and ensure that they are maintained.

Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) has identified a serious problem, namely the plethora of bodies involved in keeping watercourses clear? I have raised the matter with him on a number of occasions. There are the Environment Agency, British Waterways, the drainage boards, county councils, district councils, and, to a certain extent, parish councils, which are involved as wardens if there is flooding. Does he agree that this is a good opportunity to streamline the structure for keeping watercourses clear?

Elliot Morley: I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position on the slimmed-down Opposition Front Bench. We have done precisely the same thing in streamlining the organisation and system of flood management. The funding review considered the issue of critical ordinary watercourses, which will now become the responsibility of the Environment Agency, instead of the responsibility being split between local councils, internal drainage boards and the Environment Agency. The EA can contract back the management where appropriate to IDBs, but the approach will be much more streamlined. That includes streamlining and amalgamating regional flood defence committees and local flood defence committees. We are doing precisely what the hon. Lady is asking for.

Large Combustion Plant Directive

Paddy Tipping: If she will make a statement on the implementation of the large combustion plant directive.

Alun Michael: We expect to make an announcement about our plans shortly.

Paddy Tipping: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if the national plan approach is taken, there will be serious consequences for the British coal industry, as generators will choose to import low-sulphur coal rather than to retrofit power stations? Will he listen to warnings from the coal industry that up to 15,000 jobs could be at risk, at a cost to the economy of £700 million?

Alun Michael: We are well aware of the concerns of the coal industry, which my hon. Friend is right to point out. For that reason, Lord Whitty has been meeting representatives of all parts of the industry. The decision is not an easy one and must be based on a considered assessment of the costs and benefits to the whole of United Kingdom industry—including the interests to which my hon. Friend referred—of the two options between which we must decide.

Norman Baker: Notwithstanding the point made by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), which I understand, is it not important that this significant environmental objective should not have large loopholes that undermine its very purpose? Will the Minister give an assurance that there will not be wide exemptions for older plants that operate below 40 per cent. load, which is quite common these days? Does he understand the importance of ensuring that there is proper inspection of those plants, now and after the directive's implementation? Will he give an assurance that the Environment Agency will have enough inspectors, as he will be aware of the downward trend in the number of inspections that the agency is carrying out?

Alun Michael: The big question concerns the effectiveness of inspection, and the problem with the directive is that, when costs and environmental impact are considered, there is a fine balance between the two approaches. We need to come to a judgment on a number of competing factors, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are taking all those issues into account in reaching our decision.

Michael Clapham: I emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) that the issue is jobs. As the Minister will be aware, the emission limit value means that there will be a focus on each individual power station, which will then have a stimulus to retrofit, whereas if we go for the national plan, there will be a different approach, and we will find that the generators import low-sulphur coal. The matter is enormously important. Will my right hon. Friend discuss the way forward with his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry, because it is important that we get this right; otherwise, the indigenous coal industry could be wiped out?

Alun Michael: I can assure my hon. Friend that the matter is being looked at on a cross-government basis. The decision is one in which the different interests that he refers to are reflected. I assure him, too, that we are in touch with the UK coal industry and the electricity generating industry, to make sure that we fully understand the analysis that they have undertaken and the reasoning that underpins the fears that have been expressed. We will give full weight to those submissions in reaching a decision, but as he will appreciate, it would be wrong of me to anticipate that decision.

Henry Bellingham: Will the Minister tell the House the percentage of UK coal used in generation in 1997 and the percentage used this year?

Alun Michael: I cannot give those precise figures, but I will be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman.

Eric Illsley: I echo the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham). The Minister will probably realise that Hatfield colliery in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) is, as we speak, under threat of closure, and the Selby collieries have closed this year. If, in implementing the large combustion plant directive, we adopt the national plan, we will see the total eclipse of the British coal industry.

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend refers to the analysis provided to us and the fears that have been expressed, and I repeat to him that the analysis is being fully considered as we reach a decision. We are aware of the difficulty of the decision, finely balanced as it is, and of the need to take into account both industry requirements and environmental considerations in reaching the right conclusion.

Rural White Paper

Nicholas Winterton: If she will make a statement on the progress her Department is making in implementing the rural white paper.

Margaret Beckett: We have made considerable progress in delivering the commitments set out in the rural White Paper. The latest update on progress, which was provided on 31 August 2003, is published on DEFRA's website. A review of the rural White Paper is currently under way, and my aim is to publish it shortly.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the right hon. Lady accept that the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs concluded, in its ninth report, that, on education, DEFRA
	"has some way to go before it can be considered an effective department for rural affairs"?
	The Committee also expressed concern about DEFRA's delivery of policies to promote sustainable development, and with the Countryside Agency revealing in a recent report that the difference between the quality of life in rural areas and urban areas remains great and is increasing, does the Secretary of State accept that she should review her policies to maintain a living and working rural community to provide food for the people of this country?

Margaret Beckett: Indeed. As I said, we are reviewing the rural White Paper and the policy information that it gives us. The hon. Gentleman may know that, in addition, we have commissioned and hope shortly to publish some economic analysis from Birkbeck college, and we intend to build on that work. One of the things that was a surprise and a source of some dismay to me when the Department undertook responsibility for these matters was the lack of hard evidence. That is now becoming available; it is highlighting where the greatest difficulties arise and will enable us, we hope, to focus resources and effort on tackling some of those difficulties.

Ian Davidson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that addiction is a major problem in rural areas? What is she doing to end the addiction to subsidy in so many of our farming communities? Does she agree that unless we reform the common agricultural policy to reduce fraud, corruption and incompetence, people in the countryside will never be able to stand on their own two feet?

Margaret Beckett: As my hon. Friend knows, the direction of the reforms of the CAP that we recently secured will do a great deal to reconnect members of the farming community with the marketplace. That, we believe, is in their best interests and in the interests of the wider community.

Michael Jack: Is the Secretary of State aware of the comment on rural policy in Lord Haskins' report, in which he quotes a senior official in her Department as saying:
	"I have some difficulty working out what DEFRA thinks its rural agenda is"?
	If she is familiar with that quotation, will she postpone publication of the White Paper until she has considered Lord Haskins' interesting recommendations on combining better rural service delivery mechanisms, and will she bring those two together in the form of a debate in the House so that we can have a say in shaping Britain's future rural agenda before policy is finally determined?

Margaret Beckett: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to the Chair of the Select Committee. We look forward to working with him. My noble Friend Lord Haskins is a specialist in interesting quotations and quotation-worthy observations. Perhaps there has been a slight misunderstanding. We are not proposing to produce a new White Paper, and the Haskins report is already in the public domain. We are publishing a review of the rural White Paper, which itself is only three years old, and of the economic work to which I referred. We then intend to publish some proposals in the spring, drawing on a refreshed rural strategy. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall take careful note of all the different strands of information and advice.

Diana Organ: One of the key planks of the Government's rural policy is the regeneration of market towns. Gloucestershire has seven successful market and coastal town initiatives, four of them in the Forest of Dean. Is my right hon. Friend aware of how much work has been done in the first phase, which is the identification and prioritisation of what is needed in those market towns? Unfortunately, little progress can be made because of the lack of clarity from the RDAs and from DEFRA about where the funding is to come from to deliver the projects and programmes identified as necessary in those market towns.

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I thought the market towns initiative and the recognition of the important role of market towns were among the most interesting and worthwhile things to come out of the rural White Paper. I accept that while much was done in the first phase, there is not as much progress as people had hoped in the second. We are pursuing the matter. It is my understanding that the responsibilities identified by my hon. Friend rest with the RDAs, but following the suggestions in Lord Haskins' report about different and more devolved responsibilities, and about working with RDAs and local government, we will all need to look carefully at how those responsibilities can best be exercised in order to ensure better delivery, not worse, for rural areas.

James Gray: The Secretary of State claims considerable progress in achieving the targets in the rural White Paper. No doubt achieving EU beach standards is laudable, but such achievements butter few parsnips in the countryside. Aspects such as rural transport, rural policing, affordable housing, health services, and shops and post offices in village communities are all acknowledged to be getting worse, not better. Central Government spending is lower in the countryside than in towns and cities, and rural council tax is higher for worse services. Does the right hon. Lady agree that if the rural White Paper and the annual updates are to serve any purpose at all, they should demand analysis of the extent to which the Government are achieving what they set out to achieve? If those documents are merely a spin-doctor's menu of self-congratulatory platitudes, there is precious little purpose in having them.

Margaret Beckett: The rural White Paper is being reviewed by officials in the light of what has been delivered. I am astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman's rant about how terrible everything is in the countryside. I do not know how he has the gall to talk about rural transport when, since my Department was launched, we have spent £25.7 million on rural transport with a further £20 million—[Interruption.] Opposition Members groan because they hate being reminded how much the Government have done for rural areas—including on policing, shops and post offices—and how little they did. Responsibility for the state of the countryside rests on them.

Bob Blizzard: Is not a key part of implementing the rural White Paper the establishment of a biofuels industry based on crops, not just cooking oil? The Treasury says that a further duty rate reduction would simply suck in imports from countries with established biofuels industries, but as the industry is so important to the economies of rural areas, will the Secretary of State, with her counterpart in the Department of Trade and Industry, come forward with a specific plan to kick-start the biofuels industry, because there is a danger that if more is not done, we may not have one?

Margaret Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and I know that he has been a long-standing and strong campaigner on the issue. I can assure him that we discuss with Ministers in other Departments what can be done to help to kick-start the industry. We remain aware of the concerns that he has identified, but he has also rightly identified some of the anxieties about undesirable side effects.

Archie Norman: Does the Secretary of State recall that one of the White Paper's key conclusions concerns safer communities and rural policing, yet since its publication, crime in rural areas has risen? Will she undertake to discuss with her colleagues in the Home Office the fact that, despite the rural police fund, every time police budgets are under pressure, or every time there is a shortage of officers, as there is in my area of west Kent, it is rural policing that is cut, with the result that people in many rural communities still feel that they operate in a police-free zone?

Margaret Beckett: I am slightly surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that, and it is perhaps something that he should take up with his local authority. There are record numbers of police in Kent, as there are everywhere else: record numbers of police are available to police rural areas. I am not aware of any evidence that they have been removed from rural areas, although I am aware, of course, of the concern about crime.
	The hon. Gentleman touched on the provision of housing. Whether it is housing, transport, post offices or schools, this Government have poured resources into the rural areas that lacked those things for 20 years.

GM Crops

Simon Thomas: What recent discussions she has held with EU Commissioners on enabling European regions to ban GM crops.

Elliot Morley: DEFRA Ministers have not had specific discussions on this matter with EU Commissioners.

Simon Thomas: Will the Minister therefore take the opportunity to have such discussions? He will know that the National Assembly for Wales and 10 other regions in the EU have declared themselves a network of GM-free regions, and they want European legislation to recognise their right to be GM-free, if that is a decision taken by their legislators. Will he make sure that that can happen, bearing in mind that David Byrne, the EU Health Commissioner said a couple of weeks ago that if it were proven that GM crops harmed the environment, that would be sufficient grounds to allow areas and regions within the EU to ban them? Surely the time is now right to ensure that that can happen in Wales and in other parts of the EU.

Elliot Morley: On the latter point, it is fair to point out that some of the Commissioner's comments were misinterpreted. It may well be possible for certain specific areas to be declared GM-free where there is evidence that GM crops could cause harm, but in reality they are likely to be small and to have specific reasons for that. There will have to be evidence that the GM crops will cause harm, and that is not likely to apply to a region as large as Wales. My understanding was that the Welsh Assembly had not specifically argued for Wales to be a GM-free zone, but for some very strict regulations in relation to GM, and I understand the arguments for that. As things stand, there is no provision in EU law for taking such action; again, evidence is needed. Of course, if there is voluntary agreement among farmers and landowners, they can declare their area a GM-free zone.

Roads Used as Public Paths

John Mann: What discussions she has had with non-governmental organisations on the consultation paper on proposed amendments to legislation to reclassify roads used as public paths as restricted byways.

Alun Michael: In deciding to issue the consultation paper, I took account of the views of Members of Parliament and their constituents, who have called for action to deal with the inappropriate use of traditional byways by mechanically propelled vehicles, and strong pleas for firm action. My hon. Friend has been at the forefront in making those pleas. In addition, I have provided an opportunity for the rights of way review committee to comment on the draft proposals. That committee consists of representatives of 20 non-governmental organisations and 15 other organisations that are consultees and which receive papers.

John Mann: Increasingly, a new plague is engulfing the last vestige of tranquillity and sanity. Down our country lanes, dog walkers, horse riders and families merely seeking a Sunday morning breath of fresh air are being confronted by hordes of motor bikes. Is the Minister sympathetic to my view that where once a horse and cart ambled, an automatic upgrade for a motor bike to roar is neither logical nor acceptable?

Alun Michael: I do share that view, which is why it is included in the consultation paper. We must look at the implications of the sort of change that my hon. Friend proposes, and we are considering the matter with care. We need to balance the interests of different people and ensure that there are no unintended consequences, but the consultation will give an opportunity to look at the way forward that he urges.

Edward Leigh: May I warmly commend to the Minister what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) said? There is a famous path called the Berkshire Ridgeway, which is some 2,000 years old and which I have often walked myself. In recent years, it has been being utterly ruined by people who ride motor cycles along it. For God's sake, we have some of the busiest roads, and people can ride their motor bikes wherever they want, but do they have to ruin the last vestiges of rural England and paths that have remained unspoilt for maybe hundreds of years? It has got to stop.

Alun Michael: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. Indeed, I have been to the Ridgeway to look at the impact. I have also had meetings with Members of Parliament and Members of another place, along with local authorities, because the Ridgeway is a complex path, as he knows, which runs through the areas of a number of authorities. We have a detailed plan that is rightly a matter for local management, but I, my officials and the Countryside Agency have been working with local authorities specifically to address the concerns of Members of this House, which the hon. Gentleman has articulated, and to try to ensure that we get the balance right and use the powers that are already available, as well as considering the sort of changes that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) has urged on the House.

GM Food

Joan Ruddock: What her policy is on new approvals of GM foods in Europe.

Elliot Morley: Applications for approval to market GM foods are subject to collective EU decision making under the novel foods regulation. The independent Food Standards Agency leads the UK assessment of any application based on scientific evidence of risk to human health. Any food exceeding the EU threshold for GM ingredients must be labelled to provide consumers with information and choice.

Joan Ruddock: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the EU regulatory committee meeting on 10 November saw the UK Government indicate their willingness to give approval to GM sweetcorn Bt11? Can he tell me why he wants that product in our shops when neither the new labelling and traceability arrangements nor the new GMO approval regime, with its compulsory post-monitoring regime, are in place? What is the haste to end the EU moratorium on GMOs?

Elliot Morley: In the UK submission to the Commission, we made it clear that marketing should not go ahead until the traceability and labelling regulations had been resolved. That remains our position, and it is why the decision to address that specific point was deferred. On the other issues that my hon. Friend raised, the one criterion that we apply is whether such products are safe. That is subject to review by the Food Standards Agency, which is advised by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes.

Paul Flynn: GM foods are now at a commercial disadvantage. Is it not true that the Canadians, who have grown GM foods in great quantities for a number of years, are turning away from them for that reason and because there is international repugnance regarding their use? Should we not wait for scientific proof that such foods are harmless and insist that the biotech companies prove that themselves?

Elliot Morley: The basis of the applications is that there must be careful evaluation of whether there is risk to people and, indeed, the environment. We expect any application for GMs to go through that process. My hon. Friend might have a point about whether such crops are marketable at present—that was addressed by the strategy unit report—but whatever the future for GM, there must be clear traceability and labelling so that people may have the choice of whether to buy the foods.

Terrorist Attacks (Istanbul)

Jack Straw: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement in respect of the bomb blasts in Istanbul this morning. The House will, I am sure, understand that as information is coming in all the time, it has not been possible to make copies of the statement for distribution to hon. Members in the usual way. Copies will be placed in the Vote Office as soon as possible.
	There were a series of explosions this morning in Istanbul, one of which was targeted at the headquarters of the HSBC bank and another at the British consulate general building. It is too early to establish all the details, but these are clearly appalling acts of terrorism. It is sadly already clear that a number of British, Turkish and other people have been killed in the explosions. Latest reports are that 17 have died and that more than 300 have been injured. A number of members of the British consulate general staff are still unaccounted for and, in addition, a number are injured. We are obviously working very hard to establish the full scale of the tragedy to British consulate general staff, staff of HSBC and all others caught up in it. I know that I speak for the whole House in my utter condemnation of these atrocities and in expressing my condolences to the families of those killed and sympathy to those who have been injured.
	I spoke about an hour ago to the Turkish Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gul. I expressed to him my sincere condolences to the Turkish Government and people for the Turkish casualties, and stressed our solidarity with Turkey and the Turkish authorities. I also spoke to Peter Westmacott, our ambassador in Ankara, who is travelling right now to Istanbul in the company of the Turkish Interior Minister, Mr. Aksu. The Foreign Office will this afternoon be sending out a consular rapid deployment team to join staff travelling there from the embassy in Ankara. We have opened emergency units in London to co-ordinate our response.
	Following the horrific attacks on synagogues in Istanbul last Saturday, which killed people of both the Jewish faith and the Muslim faith, we had already revised our travel advice to take account of those attacks and to warn of a significant threat from terrorism. We are revising the travel advice again in the light of these explosions to warn against all but the most essential travel to Istanbul. Although it is too early to say precisely who was behind the explosions, they have every hallmark of the cowardly and indiscriminate acts of terrorism of al-Qaeda and its associates.
	These attacks are an affront to democracy and to the entire civilised world. They are an affront to people of every faith and religion in the world. We shall stand united with the international community in the fight against this appalling global terrorism.

Michael Ancram: I thank the Foreign Secretary not only for his statement but for the promptness with which he has made it to the House. We all share the feelings of horror, revulsion and condemnation of these murderous attacks on innocent people. At this tragic time, our first thoughts and our prayers must be with the bereaved and the injured. Our hearts go out to them.
	I realise that information is still coming in. The latest information that I had before I came into the Chamber was that the figures are now 25 dead and 390 injured. That indicates the scale of these atrocities.
	I extend our deepest sympathy to the Government and people of Turkey. They are a strong and valued ally of ours in NATO. We have a warm relationship with them. Like us, they are no strangers to terrorism. At this difficult time for them we extend to them our support and, I hope, our aid. I welcome the Foreign Secretary's announcement that a consular rapid deployment team is being sent to Turkey today.
	The Foreign Secretary has given us all the details of this outrage that are currently available. We understand why he cannot say more at this stage. There are, however, a number of brief questions that I feel I must raise.
	Was there pre-warning of these vicious terrorist acts? Given that earlier this year there had been apparent terrorist attacks on both the British consulate and on HSBC branches in Istanbul on 3 April and 31 May respectively, what extra precautions had been taken to heighten levels of security at both of the locations that were attacked so viciously this morning? Is there any sign that today's outrage was carried out by the same group, the Abu Hafs al-Masri brigades, which claimed responsibility for the attacks on the synagogues on 15 November, and for the attack on the United Nations in Iraq in August? What links does this group have with al-Qaeda? Does the Foreign Secretary attach any significance to the British character of both of today's targets? Will he be issuing further advice on security and travel not only in Turkey but wider afield, and what will be the nature of this advice?
	Today has tragically shown once again that nowhere in the world is immune from the poison of international terrorism. As we in this country have learned over many years, we must be vigilant and we must take precautions. We must never present the soft targets upon which terrorism thrives. However, terrorism is not just about the terrible acts of violence such as we have seen today; it is about the fear that it seeks to create. If we yield to that fear, the terrorist wins. We must never let terrorism or its threat deter us from going about our business or from doing what is right. The fight against terrorism is a fight that we can never give up. Terrorism may wound us; it can never defeat us.

Jack Straw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for those words. I share with him all his sentiments. It is important for us to remind ourselves, if we needed any reminding, as he has said, that Turkey is and has been a strong and important ally of ours in NATO since its inception. It has been allied with us as part of our common defence here in the United Kingdom. In addition to that, it is now an applicant member of the European Union, and we have been giving Turkey every assistance in joining the EU as quickly as possible.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked me a number of specific questions. Was there any pre-warning of the terrorist attack? The answer is no. We keep the issue of travel advice under close review. Since the Bali atrocity in October last year, we significantly upgraded the way in which intelligence is handled within the system and the way in which judgments are made on that, which in turn may feed their way into published travel advice. As I have already indicated, the travel advice was changed earlier this week in response to the terrorist bombings at the synagogues last Saturday.
	The right hon. Gentleman asks me whether security at the consulate general and other buildings had been reviewed and strengthened, given the earlier attacks. The answer to that is yes. When I spoke to Abdullah Gul, the Turkish Foreign Minister, earlier today, he said to me—I think, as it was a very poor telephone line—that Turkish security personnel had been able to intercept the car trying to drive in to the main compound of the consulate general, the result of which may have been fewer injuries and deaths than would otherwise have occurred. That, however, is subject to the caveat I have just entered.
	The right hon. Gentleman asks whether there are any indications that the same group carried out this morning's attack as carried out the atrocities on Saturday. I have no specific information, but I would be surprised if there were no, or no substantial, links with that group.
	The right hon. Gentleman's final question was whether, given the global nature of terrorism, we would give further advice to people thinking not only of travelling to or staying in Turkey, but wider afield. The answer to that is yes. When we deem it necessary to change travel advice in respect of one country because of specific information relating to that country, we always also make judgments on whether to widen the advice, as we have in respect of many parts of the middle east, so that people are alert to the wider implications of a specific threat.

Menzies Campbell: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I join in the expressions of sympathy to those who have been injured and the families of those who have been killed, whatever their nationality. I echo the support for the Government of Turkey under Mr. Ertegun, who have made so much progress in the brief period since they took office.
	Are not these events a harsh and brutal reminder not only that indiscriminate violence is the mark of the terrorist, but that those who represent British interests abroad are now in the front line? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that if these events are claimed to be part of a jihad, it is a curious jihad, which targets Muslims as willingly and indiscriminately as those of any other religion? The whole House expected the Foreign Secretary to say that the United Kingdom would not be deflected from a determination to combat terrorism, but does he agree that such a determination ought to be matched with prudence—with a commitment to a continuing review of security and a further commitment to ensure that those who represent our interests abroad are not put at unnecessary risk?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his comments and I entirely support what he said in respect of our admiration for the people of Turkey and our backing for Turkey generally as well as in this time of very great need.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked was it not now the case that those who represent British interests abroad are in the front line of threats or the reality of terrorism. My response to him is to say that everybody, of any nationality and of any faith, is in the front line of acts of terrorism. That is underlined by his point that many acts of terrorism have taken place in Muslim countries or in African countries where the overwhelming proportion of casualties have been Muslims or people of African origin, not westerners. It is worth remembering that many Muslims died in the worst terrorist atrocity of all, on 11 September 2001, and that in the appalling atrocities that took place on 7 August 1998 in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam more than 200 people were killed and more than 5,000 injured, of whom the overwhelming proportion were individuals of African and Muslim origin, not of western origin.

Donald Anderson: We obviously have a special responsibility for our diplomatic personnel overseas. Can my right hon. Friend say what the position is of our distinguished consul general, Roger Short, in Istanbul? As my right hon. Friend rightly said, we again have a terrorist outrage, almost certainly by Islamic militants, and the majority of the victims are Muslim. Surely the message is clear. We and the Muslim world share a common enemy and the intelligence should flow properly and co-operatively between us. Will the Secretary of State therefore encourage religious leaders in this country and abroad to take that message and to co-operate as fully and as widely as they can against that common scourge and enemy?

Jack Straw: On my right hon. Friend's first point, he will understand that we cannot publish casualty lists until next of kin have been informed. On his main point, of course I encourage religious leaders publicly to condemn such outrages. After the outrage in Riyadh not so long ago, I was struck that one of the senior imam in the main mosque in Mecca was the first to issue a total and unqualified condemnation of acts of terrorism and to draw attention to the fact that they have nothing whatever to do with the practice of Islam.

Robert Key: Does the Foreign Secretary share my view that it is hard for us to understand what it is like for a country that is surrounded by neighbours which are, at best, not always friendly, and often openly hostile? Does he agree that the steadfastness of the Turkish Government and people as a NATO ally should be rewarded with our assurance of assistance and encouragement of the Turkish people to become more closely involved with their European neighbours?

Jack Straw: I entirely applaud what the hon. Gentleman says and share his sentiments.

Bill Olner: May I associate myself with the Foreign Secretary's comments, especially in sending condolences to the families of people in the consulate who died in the atrocious attack? I was there with colleagues two weeks ago and recall that the consulate is in the middle of a general shopping area where ordinary people would have been going about their ordinary daily lives. Is there anything the Foreign Secretary can do to ensure that such atrocious attacks do not deter good, ordinary people from going about their normal duties? The terrorists must not be seen to have won.

Jack Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend.
	In response to an earlier question on whether we will provide assistance to the Turkish authorities, we stand ready to provide any assistance we can. In addition to the rapid deployment team from the Foreign Office, a team from the Metropolitan Police Service will also fly out on the same aeroplane this afternoon.

John Stanley: Given the clear threat warning to British interests represented by the synagogue attacks in Istanbul last Saturday, was a specific request made to the Turkish authorities for increased security for the British consulate in Istanbul earlier this week? If so, what was their response?

Jack Straw: I cannot say at this juncture whether specific requests were made, but we may be able to provide the information in due course.

Fabian Hamilton: Two weeks ago, I was also at the consulate general in Istanbul with colleagues. One thing that struck me was the very warm relationship between Jewish Turks and the majority Muslim Turks, which was severely damaged by the bombing of the synagogue at the weekend. Has my right hon. Friend had the chance to speak to Roger Short, the consul general, or Jim Begbie, the deputy head of mission, this morning? Will this terrorist outrage have an effect on the policies of the consulate general and the Foreign Office of employing as many locally engaged staff as possible? Many of them will have been injured; I hope none have been killed.

Jack Straw: For reasons which I hope are, sadly, all too obvious, it has not been possible to speak to any consulate staff in Istanbul. I have, however, spoken to our ambassador, Peter Westmacott, who is on his way there.

Derek Conway: The whole House will echo the sincerity of the condolences that the Foreign Secretary expressed today. Will he take this opportunity to reinforce the Government's support for Turkish entry into the European Union, as a long-standing democracy? As the Defence Secretary is by his side, will he pay tribute to the role of our NATO allies, in particular the superb Turkish armed forces in their peacekeeping role with NATO and in other parts of the world?

Jack Straw: I am delighted to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks, as is my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary.

Stuart Bell: Muslim leaders in my constituency to whom I spoke this morning share the sense of bereavement, loss and sorrow that is felt in this House for those who have been killed and injured. The same must go for every Muslim-faith community throughout the land. Does my right hon. Friend recall the words of Winston Churchill in a trans-Atlantic dialogue of 1942 about Nazi Germany:
	"What kind of people do they think we are?"
	What kind of people do the terrorists think that we and the international community are? Can this House and the international community send out the message that there is no political gain from mass destruction other than death and destruction?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend is right. This evil of terrorism is something that we simply have to fight and defeat. There is no alternative. This is a global threat and a global challenge. The division is not between Islam and Christianity or any one religion and another. I know that the feelings of my many thousands of Muslim constituents about such atrocities are exactly the same as those of my non-Muslim constituents. We are part of one world—one civilisation—and the divide is between those who support the values of civilisation, including Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism and the other world religions, and those who wish to destroy the values of civilisation.

Angus Robertson: On behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, I associate myself entirely with the condolences offered by the Foreign Secretary and with his statement. It is self-evident that terrorism shows no respect for borders. Bearing that in mind, will the Foreign Secretary commit himself further than the very welcome bilateral measures that he announced, and say that the United Kingdom will also be working with partners that are EU members and accession countries to counter the threat of terrorism?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for associating his party and Plaid Cymru with what has been said in the House. We always work closely with our EU and accession partners to counter terrorism. The work of the international community as a whole has been significantly upgraded following the 11 September atrocity and the passage of Security Council resolution 1373.

Richard Burden: I echo the Foreign Secretary's condemnation of the weekend's appalling attacks on the synagogues and today's outrage, as well as his condolences to the victims. As he says, we do not yet know who was responsible for those outrages. If it turns out to be al-Qaeda, or whoever else, as chair of the British-Palestine all-party group in this Parliament I must point out that such actions cannot claim in any way to advance the Palestinian cause—if that is claimed. Indeed, they are as much an insult to the Palestinian people and their quest for freedom as an insult to the rest of the world.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks with great authority on the matter, as chairman of the all-party group on Palestine.

David Tredinnick: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an essential part of the war against terrorism and that it should be put at the top of the political agenda? Will he encourage President Bush to do that in America?

Jack Straw: Look, resolution of a number of conflicts is at the top of the political agenda and right at the top is that of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Indeed, President Bush and our Prime Minister have been talking about that at the press conference that is coinciding with this statement. I have the same view as the hon. Gentleman about the importance of resolving the middle east crisis, but there is no justification or excuse for that sort of terrorism. It is the rejectionist terrorists working from the occupied territories into Israel and elsewhere who are continually setting back the cause of peace in the middle east, undermining not only the prospects for peace among the Israelis and the west but for a peaceful future for their own people, the Palestinians.

Ben Chapman: Given that this was a direct attack on British interests and in a sense on British territory, has my right hon. Friend, even at this early stage, been able to assess the implications for homeland security?

Jack Straw: It will come as no surprise to the House to learn that following the attack a series of meetings and arrangements were put into place, including a meeting of Cobra in the Cabinet Office briefing room, to assess the implications for security at our posts abroad and here at home.

Douglas Hogg: The Foreign Secretary will clearly be reviewing security at all posts. Does he agree that it is an essential principle that it is desirable to keep posts open if at all possible? It may be necessary to reduce the number of staff or to evacuate families, but he will surely be assigning close protection teams where there are high risks. Does he agree that Great Britain in general and the Foreign Service in particular gained great credit for remaining open in such places as Beirut and Algiers in extremely difficult circumstances and that that should be the principle that should continue to operate?

Jack Straw: I share the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view. I pay tribute to the bravery, for that is what it is, of many of our staff and their families in the foreign service. On Remembrance day, on 11 November at 11 am, we always have a service in the Foreign Office in remembrance of the staff who have been killed in service, as we did on Tuesday week. That is a reminder that it is our military that bear the overwhelming brunt of these sacrifices, but that our own staff and their families are also there in the front line. My first responsibility has to be for the safety of our staff and our families. Subject to that, I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Wherever I have been faced with decisions about whether wholly to evacuate a post or simply to draw down staff and keep a basic service going, in consultation with the staff on the ground, I have always sought to keep our posts open—obviously, providing an appropriate level of protection. That is of profound importance in continuing to represent British interests and diplomacy, but also in showing that we are not going to be defeated by terrorism.

Shaun Woodward: I join in expressing my sympathy to the families of those who were murdered and injured in the attacks today. In looking at the background to those atrocities, can the Foreign Secretary speculate on how relevant it may be that Turkey joined with the United States after 9/11 in its war against terror, that Turkey has stood firm with all those countries in the war against terror, and that Turkey stands within the Islamic world as a model—a country that chooses to be modern, democratic and secular, while keeping true to individual faiths? When he rightly talks about standing in solidarity with Turkey, would not one of the best expressions of that solidarity be to help to facilitate the passage of Turkey into the European Union?

Jack Straw: I agree with the sentiments that my hon. Friend has expressed. Although Turkey has had secular Governments following the major change by Ataturk, until recently the significance of the most recent election was that by a large majority the Turkish people decided to choose an explicitly Islamic party—no different from Christian Democrat parties elsewhere in Europe, but an Islamic party with a forward and western-looking aspect. That may anger the terrorists even more.
	We have done a great deal to encourage Turkey's entry into the European Union. We have always been in the vanguard of those calling for Turkey's membership and assisting that country, and we shall continue to be there.

Alan Beith: Members of the Constitutional Affairs Committee who visited the British-based and locally engaged entry clearance staff at the consulate general two weeks ago will be waiting anxiously for news of them. Our hearts go out to their families. Does the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that the problem and the impact may have been greater because while the main consulate building is being restored and is therefore empty, staff have had to be distributed to buildings on the periphery of the site? Those who guard those buildings and the entrance to the site may well have borne the brunt of the atrocious attack.

Jack Straw: Of course I understand that. Inquiries are continuing, but the right hon. Gentleman will know from his visit that substantial works were taking place on the main part of the site and that some accommodation was being used at the front.
	Earlier, I was asked whether we were taking steps physically to strengthen security. We are doing that, but there is always a period when works have to be carried out; there is no alternative to that.

Mike Gapes: May I associate myself with all the condolences that have been expressed? Does the Foreign Secretary recall the statement by the Saudi billionaire terrorist bin Laden that he was organising a fight against a Zionist crusader alliance and its international allies? Does he agree that that means that there is not one target of bin Laden's campaign, but that it is directed against hundreds of millions of people around the world and that we can expect far more of that until his organisation is crushed and eliminated?

Jack Straw: I am afraid that I recall all too many vile utterances from Osama bin Laden or those claiming to speak on his behalf. The threat will continue until it is defeated. As with Nazism, we can do only one thing: work to defeat it.

John Wilkinson: In associating ourselves with the Foreign Secretary's expression of heartfelt condolence, is not it also incumbent on us to take immediate external and internal action? As external action, we should ensure the primacy of NATO for Turkey's security. There are no divisions on the continent on the security of the people of Europe from the Bosphorus to the North sea. On internal action, can we candidly continue an open-door policy for admission into this country, especially for individuals who come from areas of known terrorist activity and great political disturbance?

Jack Straw: Our commitment to NATO as the prime military alliance to guarantee the security of this country and Europe is well known and total. I do not believe that it is appropriate to hold a debate on the hon. Gentleman's second point now. I take every care with our border controls, but the terrorists sadly show some terrible and appalling skills.

Paul Flynn: We all empathise with the terrible agony of those who have been bereaved today and those whose families have been injured. Al-Qaeda appears to have changed its policy. What is the Foreign Secretary's preliminary analysis of what is happening? Although there have been British victims in the twin towers and elsewhere, why does he believe that al-Qaeda has directly targeted British interests for the first time, and why today?

Jack Straw: It is far too early to say. Of course, much analysis of the bombings will be undertaken, but if one examines the long list of terrorist atrocities in the past five years, one realises that the sites range from Bali, Riyadh, Morocco through Dar es Salaam and Kenya to ships on the high seas and New York and Washington, and the whole of humanity, indiscriminately, is the victim of terrorism.

Cheryl Gillan: May I add my voice to those of colleagues in all parties in condemning the appalling acts of barbarism and extending my sympathies to the families of the bereaved and the injured? As the Foreign Secretary knows, a young woman in my constituency lost her life in the Bali bombing. In common with other families today, the incident will be brought into sharp relief. Can we ensure that we have learned the lessons from handling the Bali bombing and that appropriate support and help is available to families and relatives in this country as well as abroad?

Jack Straw: I do indeed remember the hon. Lady's constituent who died. I should like to underline my condolences to her family. There were lessons to be learned from Bali. It is worth remembering that we received no intelligence that could have warned us of the atrocity. I am absolutely clear about that. However, I accepted in the House that there were lessons to be learned from the way in which we handled the aftermath of the tragedy. I believe that we have learned them and that they are already being applied.

Nigel Evans: The Foreign Secretary is absolutely right when he says that all of us who detest terrorism are on the front line. Last year, 991,000 British citizens visited Turkey and it is right that the travel advice has now been upgraded. Britain is the fifth largest investor in Turkey with more than 330 companies there. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that those companies get extra guidance about how to upgrade security to protect their workers, from wherever they come?

Jack Straw: We provide as much guidance as we can to British interests and companies abroad, and we shall continue to do that. Of course I accept the importance of our commercial and economic relationship as well as the human relationship.

Paul Marsden: These were despicable terrorist attacks against innocent people. What are the Government doing actively to support intelligence sharing with the Turkish authorities to bring the perpetrators to justice and prevent further outrages in Turkey?

Jack Straw: There is long-standing, good co-operation between our intelligence services and the security authorities in Turkey, and I am sure that that will continue.

Andrew MacKay: When the Foreign Secretary rightly on behalf of the House again expresses condolences to the Turkish Government, will he especially underline our deep appreciation of Turkey's work in Iraq in reconstruction and security? That is in marked contrast to the foot-dragging of some other countries, which are allegedly our allies.

Jack Straw: This is another grim day for Turkey, but I hope that those who are aware of our proceedings—as many hundreds of thousands are in Turkey—will be heartened by the depth of the condolences that have been expressed in the House for that country and its people, and the genuine feeling of solidarity with Turkey, appreciation for its actions over many decades and strong support for its application to join the European Union.

Julian Lewis: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that although only a small number of terrorists were involved in the long list of atrocities, even including 11 September, they appear to share one belief: that, as a result of sacrificing their lives, they will go to paradise? Given his remarks about that attitude being a perversion of Islam, has not the time come, not for the ordinary, moderate Muslims in Britain—we know where they stand—but for the leaders of the Muslim community, to make their voice heard loudly to try to persuade people that such activity leads the perpetrators not to paradise but to an entirely different place?

Jack Straw: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. Everyone, especially those in a position of leadership, has a clear responsibility to express condemnation of what has happened. Leaders have a clear responsibility to provide leadership—theological leadership, if they are theological figures—and to point out that there is a difference between good and evil, and this is evil.

Mark Francois: I echo the condolences that the Foreign Secretary has offered so eloquently.
	The right hon. Gentleman rightly reminded us all that Turkey is a NATO member, and one that has suffered two atrocities in a relatively short time. Have the Turkish Government yet made any formal request to NATO for assistance, whether under article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty or through some other mechanism? If it were to do so, would it not be important for the whole alliance to demonstrate its solidarity with the Turks by responding sympathetically?

Jack Straw: There has been no specific request under article 5, for reasons that the hon. Gentleman will probably understand, but we are ready to provide whatever assistance we can. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has already made clear that that includes whatever military assistance we can give the Turkish authorities.

Patrick Mercer: May I associate myself with the Foreign Secretary's comments, especially his robust observations about the continuing war on terrorism?
	Last week we were told, in the context of homeland security, that the level of the state of alert had been raised. We were told, via a BBC news programme rather than by the Government, that there was a distinct threat to British possessions overseas. May I entreat the Foreign Secretary, and indeed the Home Secretary, to treat us more responsibly, and to let the British population know the position so that we can be more alert and act as our own intelligence officers?

Jack Straw: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Obviously it is crucial, when we are advising British citizens who are going abroad and those representing British interests abroad, that we make our assessment of the nature of the threat explicit. There is a separate discussion to be had about how specific we should be in respect of an assessment of the threat in the United Kingdom. I support the position of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I shall be happy to relay the hon. Gentleman's remarks to him.

George Osborne: I echo the condolences, and also the strong messages of support for the Turkish Government.
	Does the Foreign Secretary agree with the tough message delivered by President Bush in London yesterday? He said that if we were to defeat international terrorism, we must shake off "decades of failed policy" in the middle east when we tolerated oppression in return for stability.

Jack Straw: It was a good speech, and I thought that particular passage excellent. President Bush has underlined the message from the Arab world itself. As Members may know, two important reports produced by Arab intellectuals, funded by the United Nations Development Programme, have said that the Arab world can no longer use as a crutch the idea that it is a victim of outside oppression, or the idea that people from the Arab world and the Islamic faith are incapable of prosperity and democracy. Those ideas, they say, are an affront to their own people. President Bush echoed a demand that is increasingly emanating from the Arab world itself.

Points of Order

Michael Ancram: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given notice to the Foreign Secretary. Today's Order Paper refers to ministerial statements. There is a written statement in the Foreign Secretary's name relating to Iraq. On checking the statement, I discovered that it relates to decisions made last week on changes made in the coalition strategy in relation to Iraq. I wrote to the Foreign Secretary last week asking him to make a statement in the House about those changes.
	You, Mr. Speaker, have frequently emphasised the importance of Ministers making statements to the House, particularly on matters of significance. Has the Foreign Secretary, at any stage in the past week, sought your permission to make a statement in the House about those changes in Iraq? If not, does not airing them in a written ministerial statement that cannot be questioned, on the last day of the parliamentary Session, constitute a gross abuse of the processes of the House which should be severely deprecated?

Jack Straw: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I see that the Foreign Secretary wishes to say something, but let me first tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there were two applications for urgent questions, which I refused. It would be inappropriate to allow any discussion of that refusal.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and also to the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) for giving me notice of his point of order.
	I could not make a statement last week, although I would have liked to, because I was in Washington discussing the policy that led to the announcements by the Governing Council on Saturday. Even had I been here, because we were putting a series of proposals to the Governing Council for it to endorse, amend or reject, it would have been inappropriate to make a premature disclosure about the nature of the discussions before Saturday.
	As for this week, I was in Brussels on Monday and Tuesday. I therefore was not here to make a statement, although we kept matters constantly under review. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked urgent questions of you, Mr. Speaker, and you have dealt with them. I considered whether I should make a statement yesterday, but there was much else on the Order Paper. Urgent questions are a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, and not for me. I therefore thought that the House would appreciate a written statement.
	Had I been here, I would have been delighted to make a statement at the beginning of the week on the outcome of my discussions and the British Government's involvement in the decisions made at the end of last week. Only my physical absence from the country prevented me from doing so. Whatever else may be said about me, I do not believe that Members on either side of the House would suggest that I do not keep the House informed by means of oral statements whenever I can.

Sittings of the House

Peter Hain: I beg to move,
	That, at the sittings on Monday 24th and Tuesday 25th November—
	(1) notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 21 (Time for taking questions), no Questions shall be taken, provided that, one hour after the commencement of the sitting, the Speaker may interrupt the proceedings in order to permit Questions to be asked which are in his opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business, statements to be made by Ministers or personal explanations to be made by Members; and
	(2) the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords has been received and any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at that sitting has reported.
	This is a contingency motion. It provides for us not to have a Question Time if we are required to sit on Monday and Tuesday, because the House has made no arrangements for the tabling of questions for those days. Any urgent questions, ministerial statements or personal statements would be taken one hour after the commencement of business. The motion also provides for the sittings on those days to continue until any message from the Lords has been received and any Reasons Committee has reported. As I have said, it is a contingency motion: I hope that we shall not be sitting on Monday and Tuesday, but we must make arrangements in case it proves necessary.

Patrick McLoughlin: Surely the new procedures mean that we need much less notice of questions? What does the Leader of the House think of the way I was treated over a parliamentary question tabled on 3 March? The answer was put on my desk late last night, and it read:
	"I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy . . . in the Library."
	Is that the way in which Members of Parliament should be treated?

Peter Hain: I understand that the hon. Gentleman raised this yesterday, and was given a very clear answer. [Interruption.] If Members would calm down and let me speak, it would be for the convenience of the House.
	As the House will know, the motion is necessary only because of the extreme and highly irregular attitude adopted by Opposition and Liberal peers last night. The decision to adjourn against the Government's wishes was entirely contrary to the usual conventions.
	On the "Today" programme this morning, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) argued that the Lords were justified in objecting to Government Bills. He highlighted
	"crossbenchers in the House of Lords who've been crucial to the outcome of the votes there" .
	Actually, it was quite the opposite. In the votes, Cross Benchers were evenly divided—[Interruption.] Let me give the figures. On foundation hospitals, 11 Cross Benchers voted against, and eight for the Government. On jury nobbling, 23 Cross Benchers voted with the Government and 10 with the Conservatives. Perhaps the hon. Member for South Suffolk can be forgiven for trying to mislead "Today" listeners, but I know that the House will not be fooled.
	The Government were repeatedly defeated yesterday by a coalition of Conservatives and their partners in crime, the Liberal Democrats. On foundation hospitals, 101 Tories and 51 Liberal Democrats voted against the Government. On fighting fraud, 117 Tories and 55 Liberal Democrats voted against the Government.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents and me that he will not be bowed by the outrageous coalition in the House of Lords? When the Opposition campaign in our constituencies they say that they are trying to fight crime, yet they are doing exactly the opposite in the House of Lords.

Peter Hain: Absolutely. My hon. Friend provides me with an opportunity to expose, as she did, the double standards of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, who claim on the ground and in some of their public statements to be fighting crime, but who vote against measures that fight crime much more effectively.
	On jury nobbling, 119 Tories and 53 Liberal Democrats voted against the Government. The truth is, this is not about the sensitivities of Cross Benchers, who were more or less evenly divided on each of the key votes. Nor is it about another spurious argument that was dragged into the debate yesterday—the outrageous attempt to suggest that some Members of this House are more equal than others when voting on Government legislation and matters before the House. These specious allegations seek to camouflage a carefully planned operation orchestrated by the new Leader of Opposition to sabotage the Government's fight against crime and frustrate health service modernisation.

Oliver Heald: Would the Leader of the House comment on the views of that great conspirator, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who said that if there had been a free vote only 50 Labour Members would have supported the Government's proposals on foundation hospitals? Is not the truth that the Government Whips are forcing through a measure that nobody in the House wants?

Peter Hain: That is curious behaviour from the shadow Leader of the House with pretensions to be in government—he thinks that there should be free votes on key flagship Government legislation. What a shambles—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The shouting in the Chamber is so loud that sometimes I cannot hear the hon. Members who are speaking—[Interruption.] It is my duty to listen.

Peter Hain: rose—

Gerry Steinberg: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Peter Hain: Indeed.

Gerry Steinberg: As one of the nobblers who voted against the Government, I promise the Leader of the House that I will not vote against the Government. [Hon. Members: "Groveller!"] Yes, I always grovel, especially to you lot. I shall certainly not vote against the Government, because it is quite outrageous that this has become party political. Even though I disagree wholeheartedly with the Government's policy on foundation hospitals, the will on this side of the House is that it should become law. Although I shall not vote for that, I shall certainly not oppose the Government on the issue any more.

Peter Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he and colleagues on the Government Back Benches have sincerely held differences of opinion. However, the issue is not about sincerely held differences of opinion any more—it is about an unelected House of Lords defying the will of the elected House of Commons to take these matters forward.

Clive Efford: Is my right hon. Friend aware that rumours are circulating that negotiations are taking place in the other place on a deal or bargain to win concessions from the Government? Does that not demonstrate sheer opportunism? I speak as someone who voted against the Government last night, but what happened in the Lords was not the result of a principled position in any way whatsoever—it was just an attempt to thwart the Government with an unelected Tory majority in the Lords. Will my right hon. Friend promise that in the Queen's Speech next week there will be an opportunity to discuss future reform of the House of Lords and have a free vote on its abolition?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Leader of the House continues, the House should remember that there is a motion before us, and we cannot go too wide of it.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following directly from what you have just helpfully said, you will, I hope, confirm that in the ensuing debate, in which I hope to catch your eye, there will be a full opportunity to explore the areas opened up by the Leader of the House as part of our response to what he said about the motion.

Mr. Speaker: I do not like to give the right hon. Gentleman assurances before he has delivered his speech. Let me hear what he has got to say—I can always stop him in full flow.

Peter Hain: I, too, look forward to hearing what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has to say.
	I welcome the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), as clarity is now developing on the real issues that are at stake.

Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have the Division list from yesterday. The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) said that he voted against the Government, but looking at the list, I cannot find him there.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Paul Flynn: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House should speak first.

Peter Hain: Mr. Speaker, I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) wants to intervene, and I am happy to allow him to do so.

Paul Flynn: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has been very generous in giving way.
	As someone who has consistently voted against both the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill, and did so again yesterday, I assure the Leader of the House that what is before us has now changed utterly. We are not talking for or against Bills—we are voting for which House is supreme. The House of Commons has spoken on those two Bills. I and many others will respect that and not vote against the Bills again.

Peter Hain: I was about to come on to that very point, and am grateful to my hon. Friend for his clarification.
	I am explaining the issue by speaking directly to the motion, because it is important that the House understand why the Government have found it necessary to introduce the motion.

Patrick McLoughlin: rose—

Andrew Stunell: rose—

Peter Hain: I shall give way again to the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) in a minute, and also to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell).
	The public have a right to know that the Opposition voted to allow juries to be nobbled. They also have a right to know that the Opposition voted to enable rich fraudsters to evade imprisonment by dragging out court proceedings, costing taxpayers tens of millions of pounds that should be spent on locking up criminals, not allowing them to get away scot-free. In relation to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West, the public have a right to know that, having lost the last two elections by huge majorities, the Tories have given up on democracy and are now ruthlessly manipulating their power in the Lords to defeat an elected House of Commons.

Andrew Stunell: The Leader of the House is deploying a series of irrational arguments to justify something. There is one Bill before the House that was not in the Labour manifesto. A large number of his Back-Bench colleagues voted against it and his colleagues in the House of Lords were divided on it. The Leader of the House has come to the House with a strange argument and is trying to reassure his Back Benchers of its legitimacy. Will he assure the House that he will base our debate on the merits of the case for the Bills that he is talking about?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman that we cannot debate the Bills now: there is a motion before us. I advise right hon. and hon. Members to examine the terms of the motion. [Interruption.] Order. I can hear the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) giving good advice on sticking to the terms of the motion.

Dennis Skinner: And I am quite happy to be here on Monday and Tuesday.

Peter Hain: As ever, my hon. Friend sticks to the terms of the motion.
	In response to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove: do the Liberal Democrats have a new policy to favour the supremacy of the House of Lords over the elected will of the House of Commons? That is what the motion is about. It is about the fact that the public have a right to know that Conservative peers have been acting under close instruction from the new Conservative leader in the House of Commons, who, because he knows that he cannot defeat the Government in the Commons, is deliberately organising defeats in the Lords, where the Labour Government have only 28 per cent. of the vote. If the leader of the Tories wants to provoke days of reckoning on fighting crime, on delivering better health services, and on the fundamental constitutional and democratic right of an elected Government to have the will of the Commons prevail over an unelected, undemocratic Lords, we are up for it. We are up for it today, we are up for it on Monday and we will be up for it on Tuesday, too. We will run this right up to the wire of Prorogation in time for Her Majesty to deliver her speech on Wednesday.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House is not giving way. [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] Order.

Peter Hain: I have already given way generously. If I have time, I will do so again.
	I trust that everybody understands what is at stake here. This has gone way beyond sincerely held differences on the detail of both Bills: it is about a naked and unprecedented attempt to block the will of the people, who want fraudsters and jury nobblers to be jailed, not let off—of a public who want better health services and do not want them to fail so that the Conservatives have an excuse to pursue their agenda of privatisation and charging for health. I repeat what health Ministers said last night: no matter how many times the Bill goes back to the Commons, it will come back with clause 1 and schedule 1 on foundation hospitals reinstated.
	Let us remind ourselves, too, that the House of Lords has not been engaged in revising legislation—it is not a case of carrying out its normal duties to scrutinise and constructively to revise—because we have already accepted 90 amendments to part 1, on foundation hospitals.

Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Peter Hain: In a minute.
	This is a naked attempt to thwart the democratic decisions of elected Members of Parliament on the instructions of the Tory high command in the Commons—a new, irresponsible and extremist Tory high command; and here is one of them.

Oliver Heald: If it is right that the Government made 90 amendments as a result of the House of Lords amendments that brought them to their senses, how can the Leader of the House say that the Lords are not doing a worthwhile job? Of course they are —they are revising the legislation and making the Government think again.

Peter Hain: I am distinguishing between a situation where the Lords carry out their proper constitutional duties and the situation where, in an unprecedented fashion, and having clearly decided to confront the will of the elected Chamber, they simply adjourn, thereby denying the Government the chance to take the initiative.
	It is important for the House to know, and vital to our understanding of the motion, that two crucial pieces of legislation are at risk. If we lost the Health and Social Care Bill, the results would be: a delay in implementing the new GP contract agreed with the British Medical Association; the loss to the national health service of up to £150 million a year through the provisions relating to the injury cost recovery scheme; the loss of the new provisions on NHS dentistry; the loss of the reform of the welfare food scheme; and the loss of the independent inspectorates. And if we lost the Criminal Justice Bill, that would mean not only a continuation of jury tampering and a free ride for fraudsters, but the loss of these measures: tougher sentences for murder, especially "life meaning life" for premeditated child murders; longer sentences for dangerous sex offenders; longer sentences for violent offenders; longer sentences for dangerous drivers who kill; five-year minimum sentences for gun offences; a crackdown on bail bandits to tackle reoffending on bail; more drug testing and drug treatment—

Richard Bacon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that it is not the purpose of the motion to discuss the merits of the Bill?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the point is that the Leader of the House was not actually discussing the merits of the Bill.

Peter Hain: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker—I was seeking to make clear to the House, as I am entitled to, the consequences of proceeding down the course that the Conservative Opposition want to take.
	If we lost the Bill, we would also lose more powers for the police in their fight against crime and terrorism, and the possibility of giving the police, prisons, probation service and victims a voice in sentencing for the first time ever.

Roger Gale: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that, procedurally speaking, there is no need for the Government to lose any Bills? If they simply accept the view of the Opposition, the Liberal party and House of Lords, the Bills will go through.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not, and never has been, appropriate for the person in this Chair to get involved in the debate.

Peter Hain: I say frankly to the hon. Gentleman that what is at stake here is whether an elected Government with a majority in the Commons are able to carry on with a programme of fighting crime or whether the Conservative Opposition, with their Liberal Democrat allies, are going to thwart us in that objective.

Simon Burns: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why the Prime Minister himself voted to keep an unelected Chamber and wants an unelected Chamber to remain?

Peter Hain: The House of Lords needs reform, and it will be reformed. We are talking about an unelected, undemocratic House of Lords—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Peter Hain: It is very interesting that the Opposition are engaged in trying to wreck two crucial pieces of legislation on fighting crime and on health service reform and investment. That is their agenda.

David Cameron: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Peter Hain: No, I will not give way any more.
	Let us be clear that where Labour is tough on crime, the Tories are weak on crime. Where Labour wants better health service delivery, the Tories want to cut health services, forcing people to pay for vital operations and go private.

William Cash: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House is putting forward a number of extremely tendentious arguments regarding the constitutional position. Is it not correct that the Parliament Acts are available if the Government wish to use them?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already ruled that in no way is the occupant of this Chair drawn into the debate.

Peter Hain: Of course, the Parliament Acts are available to any Government at any time, in particular circumstances, but we are not seeking to go down that road—we hope that the House of Lords will co-operate constructively, as, traditionally, it often has. If it does not, there will be serious consequences.
	Where the Labour Government are for democracy, the Tories are for privilege and elitism. We are happy to fight them on that new ground, because we know that the people will be with us on cracking down on crime and on better health services. The Tories may be able to defeat us in a House of Lords full of their supporters and hereditary peers, but they will not defeat us where it really matters: where the people have a vote in the next general election. Passing this motion leads us on the road to that victory.

Oliver Heald: The Government are as intransigent as they are incompetent. The Leader of the House has created delight from Bromley to Bolsover by saying in the motion that we should sit for two more days. I want to take him up on his point that the House of Lords had considered these matters and that, over a period of some days, persuaded the Government to accept 90 amendments to the Bills. He is now telling us, however, that the House of Lords is full of arrogance for standing up against the Commons. Why does he say that?

Kali Mountford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Oliver Heald: In a moment.
	The Leader of the House says that that is the case because the House of Lords decided to adjourn at 11 o'clock last night, yet the Government spend all their time telling us that we should finish work at 7 o'clock every evening. In fact, we are about to lose the opportunity to use the Smoking Room after 8 o'clock because of the changes in hours that the Government have made.

David Cairns: The House made those changes.

Oliver Heald: No, no. The former Leader of the House of Lords always used to argue that it was right for the House of Lords to have sensible sitting hours, yet when it suits the Government, they say that the Lords should sit all night. What sort of reform of the House of Lords is the Leader of the House of Commons talking about? He wants a House full of Tony's cronies. Even if the Government's reform to remove the hereditaries from the Lords had been made, they would still have lost every vote yesterday, because we were not relying on the support of the hereditaries to win them—we were relying on the support of Members on both sides of the House of Lords. Furthermore, in yesterday's debate on foundation hospitals it was very revealing that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that only 50 Labour MPs supported the Government's policy.

Kali Mountford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Oliver Heald: In a moment.
	We have been standing up for important principles. On jury trial, we have said that the Government should not erode that important liberty of the subject unless there is an overriding reason to do so. What reason have the Government put forward? They say that in long and complicated fraud trials, there should be trial by judge alone, yet 92 per cent. of fraud cases result in a conviction. So what is their reason for this change?

Tom Harris: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you once again confirm the ruling that was made earlier, which was that this debate is on a motion on the sitting hours of the House, and is not an opportunity to go back— [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman's point of order.

Tom Harris: Can you confirm, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this debate is not intended to be an opportunity to revisit the arguments on either the Criminal Justice Bill or the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, and that it is an opportunity to discuss the motion on the Order Paper, which the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) is not addressing?

Richard Bacon: Further to that point of order and my earlier point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire was doing no more than the Leader of the House was doing, and that the Chair has already confirmed that that was perfectly in order?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already said, and I repeat it for the benefit of all hon. Members, that we are not at this moment discussing the merits of any particular piece of legislation that may subsequently come before the House.

Oliver Heald: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall wait for that opportunity.

Kali Mountford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way at last. Is he not concerned that the Lords' unprecedented move of pulling up stumps last night when this House was prepared to continue to debate the merits of Government legislation that had already been voted on by this elected House cocked a snook at the House of Commons, and that the electorate will not understand why their views are being overlooked by the other place?

Oliver Heald: Labour Members call that modernisation when it suits them.
	We have spent a good deal of time having constructive discussions with the Government and a great deal has been achieved: they have accepted 90 amendments. As we speak, further discussions are going on. It is right that, if necessary, we should take extra time to discuss these issues, as the motion suggests.

Peter Pike: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Oliver Heald: In a moment.
	The Leader of the House used to write eloquently about the rule of law and the need for justice and liberty. The day before yesterday, a former Labour shadow Attorney-General and Attorney-General, Lord Morris of Aberavon, whom the Leader of the House knows well, made the point that to erode jury trial was a very serious step. We are arguing that, if it is to be done for the sake of 50 cases a year, it is a step too far. We have support for that argument right across the House. Will the Leader of the House intervene in this matter, even at this late stage, in the interests of justice and the rule of law? Can he not bring some common sense to bear on all those who are digging in? As Lord Healey has rightly said, those who are dug in should not keep digging. That is something that the Leader of the House could do for us.

Peter Pike: Does the hon. Gentleman not recall that when we were in a similar position over the Railway Act 1993, when the Conservative party was in government, the House of Lords adjourned while this House was in disagreement with it, but when it met the following morning, it accepted—as it did on every occasion during the 18 years of Conservative rule—that when there were disagreements, the legitimacy lay within the elected House and not the other place?

Oliver Heald: There are always constructive discussions to be had, as there should be.
	The offer that has been made is a fair one. It is to accept 393 clauses. Cannot the Government just go that small step in the interests of justice and the rule of law, and refrain from eroding the right to a jury trial? Can they not do that small thing, bearing in mind that it will affect only 50 cases a year—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the merits or otherwise of the Bill are not for discussion at this moment.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It might have been before you assumed the Chair—when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair—that we all listened politely, if incredulously, to the Leader of the House listing many elements of the Bills under discussion. I raised this issue with Mr. Speaker in a gentle way, and he said that he was prepared, at that stage, to allow at least elements of the Bill to be brought in when they were relevant to the debate. As I said, that might have been before you assumed the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, but your perusal of Hansard tomorrow will show that the Leader of the House spent a large part of his time enumerating elements of the Bills.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced Member of the House, will be able to distinguish the difference between listing the contents of a piece of legislation and debating its merits.

Hon. Members: List them!

Oliver Heald: I do not think that I should go down the route of listing all 393 clauses.

Cheryl Gillan: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather appalling that aspersions should be cast on the other place in this debate? I have been reading carefully yesterday's debate on the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill in the other place, in which our noble Friend, Lord Cope of Berkeley said:
	"More seriously, as far as I can detect, the various parties seem to have moved close to one another on the Bill on the various outstanding issues. We should, as a House, attempt to facilitate the ability of the Government, Opposition and other parties to come to an agreement about the future and settle it on a Bill about which there has been much controversy."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 November 2003; Vol. 654, c. 2035.]—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Lady could bring her intervention to a close.

Cheryl Gillan: I was simply trying to make the point to my hon. Friend that this was responsible parliamentary behaviour—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is aware of what the hon. Lady is saying. I call Mr. Oliver Heald.

Oliver Heald: We were looking for a cooling-off period—a time for reflection—and I do not think that it is too much to ask that the Government should reflect on issues of this seriousness.

David Cairns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Oliver Heald: In a moment.
	The offer that has been made on foundation hospitals would allow the whole Bill—the GP contract and all the other measures that I could list—to go through. What we do not want is a two-tier system in our country—a half-baked solution that simply will not work. We are entitled to negotiate and discuss. The other place was giving us that opportunity. [Interruption.] It may be, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we are to have those clauses listed.

David Cairns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Oliver Heald: In a moment.
	It would be bad news for this place if we were left to wait for Lords messages with the Government digging in and nothing else to be done. We should reflect on the reason for us getting into this mess: the Government's appalling management of the business.

David Cairns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Oliver Heald: In a moment.
	How could it happen that the Criminal Justice Bill, which had been in Committee in this place in January, arrived for final, serious consideration in the Lords only last night? In fact, the printers were kept up all night to get the papers ready for this place. That is incompetence. To add to it, we now have intransigence. That is not good enough.

David Cairns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Given the burgeoning alliance between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in another place, does it not alarm him that he has been abandoned by all but one of his allies in this place? Does it not speak volumes of the Liberal Democrats that while their peers are queueing round the block to defeat the Government in another place, only one of their MPs can be bothered to turn up to this Chamber to debate the supremacy of this House?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not relevant to the debate.

Oliver Heald: I think that the one Liberal Democrat Member we have here is quite a good one. [Interruption.] Well, there are mixed views on that.

David Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before an attempt at rescuing the shadow Leader of the House is made by his predecessor, will you rule that any listing of the titles of the 393 clauses that might be envisaged by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would be ruled out of order as tortuous and unnecessary in relation to the debate on the matter before us? [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a point of order. Would hon. Members please allow the hon. Gentleman to continue?

David Taylor: Will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, rule in advance that any attempt by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to regale the House with the titles of all the clauses of any Bill concerned would be ruled out of order as tortuous, a waste of time and an abuse of parliamentary process?

Oliver Heald: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish to respond to the point of order from the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor).

Oliver Heald: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. No, first and foremost, I want to respond to this point of order. Never would it be appropriate for any occupant of the Chair to make a ruling in advance of hearing what any Member would say.

Oliver Heald: May I turn to an important matter of detail in the motion? Paragraph (1) says that no questions should be taken on Monday and Tuesday of next week. If we are to be here, waiting for Lords messages, it would be wrong to lie idle, so may I suggest that we have questions on Monday and Tuesday of next week and that we find time for a short debate on Iraq, which the shadow Foreign Secretary asked for?

Chris Bryant: Questions on what?

Oliver Heald: I am coming to that. I suggest that we have questions on home affairs and health, because this Government do not like answering questions. We know that the Prime Minister never answers a question. In fact, he has been asked 11 questions by the Leader of the Opposition—11 asked and none answered.

David Cameron: Does my hon. Friend think that it would be worth while to have questions to the Chancellor, because the one question that no one on the Treasury Bench seemed to be able to answer yesterday is whether total capital investment in the health service is capped? If the Chancellor, who is now responsible for almost all domestic policy, came to the House, we might be able—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Again, we cannot debate questions that we might ask of a Minister.

Oliver Heald: There should be questions next week, despite what the motion says.

John Redwood: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He is making a convincing case. Has he borne it in mind that we have had only 164 sitting days in the parliamentary year, although a lot of people outside the House have to work 240 days a year in their normal employment? Does that not show that we do not have enough time to consider such Bills properly or to ask the right questions, as he has said? Should not we ask the Government for more sitting days as well as more hours?

Oliver Heald: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Although a distinction was drawn between the previous shadow Leader of the House and me, I think that working hard—I know my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst agrees—is something we should be doing.

Nigel Evans: It appears to me that the Government will get into similar problems next year. They have a number of unpopular Bills that they will find difficult to get through this place and, indeed, the other place. The issue of questions is important: should not the Government modernise Question Time so that we can table questions in the expectation that we may sit on the Monday and Tuesday when prorogation takes place? If we came across a similar situation, we could have Question Time.

Andrew Miller: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that the motion on sittings is amendable? Had the shadow Leader of the House been doing his job properly, his arguments would not be necessary, as he could have tabled amendments.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct. The motion is amendable, but I note that it was tabled quite late last night.

Roger Gale: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. What you have just said is extremely helpful. Would you consider taking a manuscript amendment?

Madam Deputy Speaker: We seem to be getting quite a few references to hypothetical questions. I am not ruling on a hypothetical question.

Oliver Heald: Looking at paragraph (1) of the motion, the only reason that this proposal is needed is to prevent us from having Question Time. If the motion had not been tabled, I believe that we could have normal days on Monday and Tuesday.

Simon Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because I want to ask him a question about paragraph (1). Is my interpretation correct in that, fortunately, it allows for an interruption on Monday and Tuesday for an urgent question? Given the comments of the Leader of the House on an unelected Chamber, could not that opportunity be used for the Prime Minister to come to the House to explain why he believes in an unelected Chamber whereas his Ministers seem not to?

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Of course, if we had the Chamber at the other end of the Corridor that the Prime Minister wants, we would still have had exactly the same result in those votes.

Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Oliver Heald: Give me a moment, because I want to make the point that there is a good reason to have Home Office and Department of Health questions next week. [Hon. Members: "And Treasury questions."] And possibly Treasury questions. Let me give an example.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) has explained that on 6 March he asked a question on administrative grants for the Home Office. On 19 November—eight months later—he received a holding reply. He could have an answer to that question on Monday or Tuesday.

Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Oliver Heald: In a moment.
	To give another example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean), the Opposition Chief Whip, asked a question of the Home Office on 27 January. He received a reply on 19 November—this Wednesday:
	"I will write to the right hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library."
	That is the reply, 10 months later. My right hon. Friend could come along on Monday or Tuesday.

Jonathan Sayeed: I put it to my hon. Friend that even when we receive answers they are not much use. After all, the Prime Minister yesterday told us that trade between the United States and the United Kingdom totals £2,000 billion a year. That is more than the gross domestic product of the United Kingdom.

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. To return to my point about the hopeless answer—

Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Oliver Heald: In a moment. The Secretary of State for Health was asked
	"what recent discussions he has had on the testing of school children for sexually-transmitted diseases".
	The answer was:
	"The power of decision to provide a school based health service, and the content of that service, is for the individual governing body of the school in consultation with pupils, parents and the school community."
	What discussions did he have? He would not answer the question. All right hon. and hon. Members who regularly ask questions and wait for 10 months for an answer or do not receive an answer could come to the House on Monday or Tuesday and ask the same questions and get answers for a change.

Kevin Brennan: Could we also have questions to the Department for Constitutional Affairs so that we could discuss creating sufficient Labour peers to reflect the democratic wishes of the country and so get the Bills passed? Would not that be a better use of time?

Oliver Heald: Sadly, we do not need a debate on that. The Prime Minister is already doing that.
	It is right that we should have the opportunity to use this time well. The Leader of House has made his accusations, but the truth of the matter is that he and his colleagues should be using the time that the House of Lords has given us to pause and reflect.

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been listening to my hon. Friends' arguments and your rulings from the Chair on points of order. They have convinced me to prepare a manuscript amendment that is real, rather than hypothetical. I hope that you will accept it as an amendment to the motion.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Manuscript amendments are for the consideration of the Speaker, and if it is sent to his Office, it will be considered in the usual way.

Oliver Heald: The Government have made their allegations, but they should do the responsible thing and use this time for reflection. Instead of being stubborn, arrogant and intransigent, they should listen, learn and look at what all sides are saying. Then we could move forward on the basis of the constructive proposals made by the Opposition and others. Unless the manuscript amendment is accepted and there is some change during the course of debate, we shall divide on the motion.

Stuart Bell: I congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on his new role: he clearly enjoys it and has kept the House amused and lively.
	I have not fully understood the terms of the contingency motion, but I am assuming that in the light of the Lords' behaviour the Prime Minister will use the next occasion available to him to visit Her Majesty to recommend that more peers should be created so that the House of Lords respects the will of an elected Parliament. In that way, if we are here on Monday and Tuesday, we shall be debating the possibility of a new Parliament Bill that will limit further the powers of the other place to prevent the will of the elected representatives from being respected.

John Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stuart Bell: I will be happy to give way in due course. We have plenty of time. The Conservative Benches are galvanised and I look forward to hearing from the right hon. Gentleman. The Lords have voted once, but they have to vote again, so we have plenty of time to have a full debate. Before I give way, however, I will set the foundations of my contribution: I am assuming that we may expect the Prime Minister to recommend the creation of more peers, and that on Monday and Tuesday we shall be looking for a new Parliament Bill.

John Redwood: Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House how that could possibly work? The problem is that once Her Majesty has graciously agreed to create a peer, there is no requirement for that peer to follow the Labour Whip. Indeed, most of them do not seem to bother.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are straying wide of the motion.

Stuart Bell: I shall stick with the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman that in 1911 there was no difficulty in the Prime Minister advising the Leader of the Lords that the recommendation had been made and that the King had graciously accepted it. There followed a Parliament Bill. There is no logistical difficulty about such a recommendation, and given the attitude of the other place, I imagine that Her Majesty would graciously accept it.
	As the Leader of the House said, this is not a question concerning the principle of Government legislation. That was debated last night and we shall not go into it again. Many of my hon. Friends voted with the Conservatives. That is a matter for them and their conscience. If they can sleep at night, that is fine. They have made their point. Now we face a constitutional question: the upper House is preventing the elected House of Commons from exercising its will in the interests of the people.

Nigel Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if the Prime Minister created sufficient peers from among his Labour cronies to sit in the House of Lords to ensure that there was a sufficient majority to get everything through that the Government wished, there would be no need—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not going into the merits of various ways of selecting or electing members of the House of Lords now.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful for your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	In response to the hon. Gentleman's question, it was a Liberal Prime Minister who recommended to His Majesty the creation of peers. That was accepted and there followed a Parliament Bill. That would not change the nature of the Parliament Act 1949. There would still be a pause in the passage of legislation, and certainly the Lords would have the right to amend legislation, fulfil their constitutional function and send legislation back to us. That constitutional position is not being altered. If we are here on Monday and Tuesday, I would like to debate the reasons why we should have a new Parliament Bill; why this House is sitting on Monday and Tuesday under a contingency motion; and why this elected assembly should never again put ourselves in this position.

Nick Hawkins: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have a great respect for his interest in the way in which both Houses operate. Would he be interested to know—I can send him the details later—that one of the peers appointed by the present Prime Minister to the upper House recently wrote to me to say that she was unaware that she was still listed as a Labour peer, having moved to the Cross Benches because of her professional position, and that she rarely had time to sit in the other place? Does he agree that if we are considering the role of the upper House we must look at whether those appointed by the current Prime Minister are doing the job for which they were appointed?

Stuart Bell: The same holds true for those who owe their peerage to what happened 400 years ago under Charles I, but I respect your counsel, Madam Deputy Speaker, and will not get into that debate.
	The powers of the Lords have been referred to. I mentioned the Parliament Act 1911 and I will refer briefly to the Parliament Act 1949. If on Monday and Tuesday the House sits under this contingency motion and if we debate the possibility of a new Parliament Act, it would not interfere with the Parliament Act 1949, which gives the Lords a delaying power. It would be perfectly possible for the Prime Minister to visit Her Majesty on Sunday, for her to accept the recommendation and for us to debate a new Parliament Bill on Monday and Tuesday. That could be done in such a way that the Queen could refer to it in her speech on Wednesday.

Richard Bacon: Will the hon. Gentleman say who he thinks should be the arbiter on whether the House of Lords is correctly fulfilling its constitutional functions? Should that question be determined simply by the majority, for the time being, in this House, or by wider considerations, including public opinion and a sense of consent throughout the nation? If the answer is the latter, surely it is worth listening to what the House of Lords has to say.

Stuart Bell: Without diverting into a debate wider than the motion before us, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the answer is very simple: the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 provide the upper House with certain clear powers. Those are revising powers and powers to delay within a set time. As we have heard today, the House of Lords has respected that situation, and it made some 90 amendments, which the Government have accepted. That is the constitutional position.
	What we are seeing today and what we saw last night, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) said, is that the House of Lords no longer respects the will of the people. Without getting into a wider debate, I can say that this House gave a clear view last night; a majority of 17 is quite sufficient. The late Winston Churchill said that a majority of one is enough. The will of this House was expressed, and this motion is a result of the Lords not wanting to respect the wishes of our elected representatives.

Greg Knight: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to the terms of the motion? Many hon. Members on this side of the House would agree with it if it did not contain paragraph (1). Why can we not have questions next week?

Stuart Bell: That, of course, is a matter for Madam Deputy Speaker, not for me. We have already had a suggestion for a manuscript amendment, and the Corridor and the Speaker's door are open if anyone wants to pursue that course. If manuscript amendments were to be accepted by the Speaker, I would be happy to move one saying that we ought to be here on Monday and Tuesday to debate the prospect of a new Parliament Bill.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend strongly made the point that on two separate occasions this House has already made its views known extremely forcefully on both the Bills that have still to return from the House of Lords. Opposition Members have said that the Lords has every right to make the House of Commons think a second time, and it surely does, but not a third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh time, because in the end it should be the democratic Chamber that wins through. Would my hon. Friend suggest in his new Parliament Bill that there should be only one opportunity for the Lords to ask the Commons to review its position?

Stuart Bell: Again staying within the terms of the debate, I shall answer that by referring to a point made to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke). Not in this Parliament, and certainly not since 1997, have we seen the House of Lords acting in the way that it did last night. Getting to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), certainly a new Parliament Act should reduce still further the delaying power of the Lords.

Tom Clarke: I intervene mainly because my hon. Friend referred to me. Last night I did my duty as an elected Member of this United Kingdom Parliament and as my constituents would have expected me to do. Those who would seek to influence me not to vote on, for example, Northern Ireland matters—particularly, if I may say so with respect, if those people represent the Conservative and Unionist party—should recognise that they are playing right into the hands of the separatists.
	On the point made by my hon. Friend, I have not always supported the Government; I opposed them on incapacity benefit. [Hon. Members: "Give way."] However, and here I conclude, the point came when Lord Ashley of Stoke and I, who, if you like, led that rebellion, accepted, as Lord Ashley said, that the democratic House had spoken. He accepted that judgment, and it is time that that wisdom was replicated in another place.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. By way of an intervention he made a better speech than I could. I am grateful to you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	My right hon. Friend made a valid point which I made earlier, and if I may I will repeat myself. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends voted with the Conservatives last night as a matter of conscience. They expressed their wish and their will, and they opposed their own party. However, what we are now debating is a motion through which the unelected upper House can seek to impose its will on an elected Chamber. Two of my hon. Friends have already said today that this is a question of the constitution, and I am sure that all my colleagues will now vote with the Government—I urge them to do so.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman is looking at how the role of the upper House as a revising Chamber may affect this motion. Does he accept that the practical reality is that, because of the Government's tight guillotines, the upper House is now the only House that has the opportunity to debate matters such as those arising from the Criminal Justice Bill, in full?
	The Government could have all bar about three clauses of their huge Criminal Justice Bill by agreement with the democratic Chamber, so is not the other place entitled to claim that it is doing its job as a revising Chamber by saying to the Government that they can have 305 clauses of the Bill if they just take out the three that many of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues do not like any more than we do?

Stuart Bell: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but I reiterate what the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Health have said. Certainly in the case of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, if not the Criminal Justice Bill, these questions go to the heart of Government policy. I surmise, without straying too far from the motion, that if the Government had lost the vote last night, it would have been a matter for a vote of confidence in this Chamber. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) would have been the first to call for that, and I would have supported that call.
	What the Lords are doing is not revising. We have already been told that 90 amendments have been accepted by the Government. What we are seeing now is a policy put forward by the Government, and supported by a majority in this House, being contested and rejected by the Lords, creating not a constitutional crisis but a constitutional difficulty. If, under the terms of the motion, the House sits on Monday and Tuesday, we should take all that into account.

Simon Burns: With regard to the Bill dealing with foundation hospitals, will the hon. Gentleman bear it in mind that those policies were not in the Labour party manifesto, and they were rejected by the Labour party conference in October?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the merits of the subject matter of legislation.

Stuart Bell: I always seek your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker, but if I may, I shall make a brief response to the hon. Gentleman. Every Queen's Speech that I have listened to over the past 20 years has said, "and other Bills will be presented to you". Those Bills were not always in the manifesto.

Tom Harris: Is my hon. Friend aware that, once again, the other place has voted for the amendments on jury trials and fraud? Does that not confirm exactly his point that the powers of the other place have to be curbed in favour of maintaining the supremacy of this Chamber?

Stuart Bell: I am making this speech as a humble barrister. I did not get into the debate on jury trials, and I will not get into it now. However, the only examination that I ever passed with any distinction was one on constitutional law, and the lesson that I learned from that was that the other place must always yield to the supremacy of this Chamber. What we are seeing now is a usurpation of that right and a lack of dignity and respect for this Chamber, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley said. Last night, this House—certainly 590 of us, if not 650—were ready to sit here to resolve any conflict between the Lords and this place, and the other place refused to do its constitutional duty. Without straying too far from the motion, I can say that that is a challenge to this House, and it is a challenge that I take up, first as a Member of Parliament, secondly as a barrister and thirdly as someone who did well in constitutional law.

Oliver Heald: Is it not right that there should be a process, which is continuing, of trying to produce a Bill that is satisfactory to all parts of the House? What is wrong with the other place saying, as it did last night, "Let us have a pause for reflection—a cooling-off period—and see if we can go that extra mile"?

Stuart Bell: It is not "The Green Mile"—the film that the hon. Gentleman may have seen, as I have—to which he refers. He gives me the opportunity to mention a cooling-off period. The House of Lords is a revising Chamber—a Chamber intended to send matters back, to make recommendations and sometimes to cool off the emotions of this House. That function has hitherto been exercised fairly well. But, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said yesterday, when a debate has been going on for almost a year in this place and the other place, and when, a day before prorogation, after the House and the Government have indicated that they will not yield on matters of substance on Government policy, the other place turns that down, creating the need for the motion before the Chamber today, possibly requiring Parliament to come back on Monday and Tuesday, that is not revising. It is not cooling off. It is, if I may use the vernacular, cocking a snook.

Chris Bryant: Is it not just downright recidivism, for that matter?

Stuart Bell: If I spoke about recidivists, I would be getting into the Criminal Justice Bill, and I do not wish to exercise that right at this moment. I see, even in a short space of time, a repetition of the proceedings before the Parliament Act 1911, when the other place sought to interfere with the taxation powers of this House. In 1949 the law was changed again because of the intolerable delays that the House of Lords created in the nationalisation programme of a Labour Government. We are now seeing a third attempt to usurp the functions of an elected Government. That never happened under the Conservatives, even though there was a cooling-off period and many amendments were moved. The Tory Government were defeated many times and the legislation returned to the House. There was a cooling-off period, but there was never a motion such as the one before us to be debated two days before prorogation. That is a challenge to the supremacy of the House.

Crispin Blunt: Was that not because the Government then were wise enough to negotiate a compromise with the other House in order to get their legislation through?

Stuart Bell: The former Conservative Government and the present Government have both sought to clarify issues with the Lords, sought to amend or improve their legislation with the Lords, and by and large were successful. Whether the principle of the Bills was accepted is another matter. By accepting 90 amendments to the present legislation, the present Government have shown themselves prepared to fall over backwards to please the House of Lords and to take into account what the Lords said. We come back to the point made by the Leader of the House: this is a challenge to our supremacy. Those on the Conservative Benches—I see many in the House, I see Chairmen of Committees, and I respect them—understand the principle of supremacy and the challenge to this House. I should be surprised if they continue with that challenge by supporting the other place.

Tom Harris: Opposition Members criticised my hon. Friend earlier for suggesting that more Labour peers should be created in order to get the Government's manifesto commitments through the other place. He has been in the House long enough to remember that in 1990 the Conservatives made sure that every single hereditary peer in the country—people who had never once attended the House of Peers—were drafted into the House of Lords to push through the poll tax legislation. Does that not show utter contempt for the democratic process of both Houses?

Stuart Bell: That is certainly the case. Many years ago Laurence Olivier was made a peer. He never showed up at all until his wife, Vivien Leigh, threatened to disrupt the proceedings. He had not even signed the form, but he thought he had better show up. At the Labour party conference in 1977, Jack Jones asked about the origins of the peers and the liaisons in the time of Charles I from which the descendants are now profiting. I will not discuss the composition of the Lords, but I will answer one point that was made in relation to the debate.
	It was suggested that I had said that we should create Labour peers. I never said that at all. I said we should create sufficient peers so that the will of this House will be respected in another place. That is the essence of our short debate today.

Simon Burns: May I remind the hon. Gentleman, as he seems to have forgotten, that it was under the premiership of the Baroness Thatcher that the House of Lords refused to accept the War Crimes Bill, and we had to use the Parliament Act to get it through?

Stuart Bell: I am one of the few Members of Parliament who, on the day Lady Thatcher retired from the House, praised her for her contribution, much to the chagrin of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), as I well remember. The question was whether she had been the greatest Prime Minister since the war. My response was that the greatest Prime Minister since the war was Clement Attlee.
	On the War Crimes Bill, I remember that well. I was one of those who, with the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), sought to push it through and congratulated everyone when it was pushed through. But we are not dealing with that.
	Whether we are under a Conservative or a Labour Government, the supremacy of the House cannot be challenged. Yet we see it being challenged even now. We sign sessional orders every time we open a new Parliament, so that we have access to the building. Hon. Members may have seen from their e-mails that certain entrances will be closed today. That is an infringement of the rights of Members of Parliament.

Crispin Blunt: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the House of Lords is not entitled to exercise its powers, as they exist under the Parliament Act?

Stuart Bell: There is such a thing as abuse of power. What we are seeing today and what we saw last night are clear abuses of power by the other place towards an elected Chamber. That shows disrespect to every Member of the House who was duly elected by the people of our country to govern the country. The legislation of which we were speaking, which I will not get into, is supported by the Cabinet and by the Commons, and the Lords are challenging it. That is an abuse of power, not a use of power.

Chris Bryant: Is it not one of the greatest ironies of history that for the most part, the Parliament Act has had to be used on issues on which there had been free votes in the House but the Lords decided to throw the legislation out? A classic example is the Hunting Bill. Should the Lords not bow down and listen to the will of the democratically elected Members of the Commons?

Stuart Bell: I will not be tempted by my hon. Friend to widen the debate, but that is a clear case of an elected Assembly expressing a clear view, which has been disregarded subsequently by another place. The Parliament Act may have to be enforced.

Nigel Evans: Would it not be useful for the House to come back on Monday and Tuesday? People think we do not sit on enough days. We are discussing two controversial Bills that are deeply flawed and which do not have the full support of the House. We know that there are many reservations on the Government side. Debating the Bills on Monday and Tuesday would give us more opportunities to discuss their merits, which would be useful to the House.

Stuart Bell: I say again that I would be happy to come back on Monday and Tuesday to debate a recommendation from the Prime Minister to Her Majesty to create new peers. I would be happy to come back on Monday and Tuesday to debate a new Parliament Bill. I would be happy for a new Parliament Bill to be included in the Queen's Speech. I would be happy if we created sufficient peers so that the will of this Chamber was respected in the other place, and so that the will of a Government duly elected was respected. I would be happy to debate all those matters on Monday and Tuesday.

Andrew Miller: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to yesterday's debate in the House of Lords. The Cross Benches had been prayed in aid by the Opposition in the debate, but Baroness Finlay of Llandaff said:
	"I do not want to comment on the way in which votes have been cast in one way or another."
	She went on to say:
	"I sincerely believe that if we had more time to look through these proposals, more might have been achieved."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 November 2003; Vol. 654, c. 2019–20.]
	We are providing that time.

Stuart Bell: We are giving that time, but the Government have said, and the Leader of the House has said today, that the legislation is a vital part of the Government's and Parliament's programme to ameliorate situations in relation to health and crime. I shall not go into that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but that is where the Lords are interfering with our democratic process.

Greg Knight: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. A rumour is growing among Opposition Members, which I think is probably true, that some of my hon. Friends have tabled a manuscript amendment to the motion. Will you confirm whether that it is case, and if so, what is Mr. Speaker's decision?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Many hon. Members were present when the manuscript amendment was raised, and I repeat my ruling that that is a matter for decision by Mr. Speaker. The House will be notified accordingly.

Stuart Bell: I will give way to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt).

Crispin Blunt: The hon. Gentleman has talked considerably about the democratic rights of this Chamber, but in his contract with his electorate I do not recall his standing on a manifesto pledge to remove the right to jury trial or to have two-tier hospitals.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was present in the Chamber when I ruled that we are not here to debate the merits of any Bill.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not wish to go into that, but in my political career I have followed the conservative line that Governments are elected to govern for a four or five-year period and to return to the country and say, "This is what we did." That was the philosophy and tradition of the Conservative party for many a year. I have sat in this House for 20 years, some under a Conservative Government, and I have voted on Bills that were never put to the people by way of a manifesto or never appeared in a Queen's Speech.

Gordon Prentice: My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) mentioned the speech by Baroness Finlay in the other place yesterday. She is a highly regarded Cross Bencher and she complained that many questions had not been answered. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) is a constitutional expert, so could he tell me whether, when the Reasons Committee retires to put together the reasons why this House rejected the Lords' proposals, they could extend beyond one simple sentence? Could detailed reasons be given to the House of Lords as to why we have rejected its proposals?

Stuart Bell: I may be a constitutional expert, but that is a matter for the Chair or the Leader of the House.

Kali Mountford: Did not my hon. Friend's electorate elect him to use his considerable judgment, which has been amply demonstrated this afternoon—I do not require him to comment on that; I simply make that point? Given his great experience and wisdom, is it not the case that on issues such as this there comes a point when each House has to recognise that the argument is over, and have we not now reached that point? However many more days we spend debating the issues, the House of Lords should recognise that we will be answerable to the electorate while they carry on debating, and the constitutional position must remain that the decision lies ultimately with this House.

Stuart Bell: I, like many other hon. Members, have had to cancel a series of constituency engagements today. I was due to open a building, which happens about once every five years, but I had to tell my constituents that I would be in this Chamber and not one has complained about that because they know that this is my place and this is where I should be.
	My hon. Friend is right in the sense that the debate is over and the reasoned amendments have been put. The amendments from the other place are no longer reasoned amendments; what we are getting is rejection. We are now seeing a constitutional ping-pong. We are no longer here for reasons of principle; we are here because of a challenge to this House and its supremacy.

Vera Baird: I apologise for not having been here all morning, but I have been listening to the proceedings in the other House. I take it that all hon. Members are perfectly well aware that the amendments now before their lordships' House were originally tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Scotland on behalf of the Government and, having been withdrawn, have now been retabled by the Opposition. They are precisely the basis of an agreement that was reached this morning that would have resolved the entire issue. That ought not to be lost sight of.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, who not only has a constituency next door to mine but is also a distinguished barrister who has participated in many of these debates. She demonstrates again not only that this is a constitutional ping-pong, but that the other place is showing cynicism of the highest order. Members of the other House have set aside their own principles and understanding of the constitution and taken a view that we have not seen in the entire life of this Government since 1997, and such as we have not seen since the early part of the century, or in the 1940s when we had a Labour Government with a strong programme of nationalisation.

Vera Baird: I have obviously not made myself clear. What has happened is that the Government have changed their mind and what they agreed this morning, they now vote down in the House of Lords. I cannot see how that can be given the countenance of a lack of principle in the Opposition.

Stuart Bell: It is for the Leader of the House to define the Government's policy, but that shows how we are open to argument in the interests of our legislation. Because of that we are still here debating the motion to sit on Monday and Tuesday. The House of Lords is usurping the powers that were given to us by the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949.

Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has been very reasonable through much of his remarks, and he has a fine reputation in the House. He spoke about the Prime Minister going to Her Majesty the Queen in order to bring about the appointment of a number of additional peers, and he said that they would not necessarily be Labour peers. How could he guarantee that they would take the point of view that he is expressing in the Chamber today? Might they not support the cross-party opposition, not least on the erosion of jury trial, which I consider to be a constitutional issue? Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the Lords have a right to take a position on that to the bitter end, even if foundation hospitals are a political matter?

Stuart Bell: I have one eye on Madam Deputy Speaker, and she has one eye on me, so I shall not get into a debate on the merits of the Bills. However, I believe that the Lords are wrong on jury trials, and I say that as someone who practised in jury trials in France as well as in the United Kingdom.
	On hon. Gentleman's point about the Prime Minister seeking to make recommendations to Her Majesty on peerages, I should say that my right hon. Friend has been reluctant to create peerages, either on the Labour side or on the Conservative side. We are at least 25 peers short, and there may be some announcement later. In the light of what is happening today, I urge the Prime Minister to use his constitutional right to make the recommendations.
	On the hon. Gentleman's third point about competence, I am suggesting that, were we to have a debate on Monday on constitutional issues, sufficient peers should be sent to the Lords who would respect the constitutional issue of who is supreme. The Parliament Act 1949 would still be extant in the sense that the Lords would have the power to delay legislation. I am suggesting not that peers be created simply to support this Chamber, but to respect the constitutional position. So it comes down to a question of competence, not political ideology.

Kevin Brennan: Further to the point made by our hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), is not the point of principle not who did or did not table what amendments, but the thwarting of the democratic wishes of the democratic upper Chamber? This is the upper Chamber in this Parliament, and that is how we should refer to it.

Stuart Bell: If I may, I should like to go back in history a little, while staying within the confines of the debate. In 1911, the Prime Minister went to His Majesty and asked to create peers because of the constitutional position and the opposition of the Lords to a certain tax Bill that we will all remember, even if we were not here at the time. In 1947, the Lords had to yield to the Commons in terms of their delaying abilities. They had eternal delay at that time, but they do not have it now, except on a Bill that would prolong the life of this Parliament, which is not covered by the Parliament Acts. What we are seeing now is again a threat to the constitution, and my hon. Friend highlights that issue. Not as a Labour Member of Parliament, but as a Member of this House, I seek to ensure that the rights of the people who sent me here are respected.

Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that there were two general elections before the extra peers were created in 1911? Is he suggesting that that should occur now?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed a degree of levity, but I think that we should now focus much more strictly on the motion.

Stuart Bell: I am happy to stay on the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is not Labour Members who have most to fear from a future general election, but Conservative Members.

Gordon Prentice: On a point of fact, it is not possible for the Prime Minister to create any number of peers. Any recommendations must go through the House of Lords Appointments Commission.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not currently debating the composition of the House of Lords or its method of appointment and selection.

Clive Efford: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was going to wait until my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) had finished his speech before raising this point, but he has taken so many interventions that I do not think that raising it now will ruin his train of thought. Earlier, I said that I had voted against foundation hospitals last night. Unfortunately, an hon. Member on the Opposition Benches—I shall not name him, as he is not present—suggested that I had misled the House. I seek your advice on how I may seek redress and put the record straight, as I resent the accusation that I would deliberately and knowingly mislead the House.

Oliver Heald: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had a very interesting conversation with the hon. Gentleman in the Lobby and I can confirm that he definitely voted with us.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That was not a point of order for the Chair, but it appears to have been satisfactorily resolved.
	I must make an announcement to the House. The following manuscript amendment has been accepted by Mr. Speaker. The amendment, which was tabled by Mr. Eric Forth, Mr. Crispin Blunt and Mr. David Wilshire, is in line 2, leave out paragraph (1) and insert
	'(1) notwithstanding paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 22 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments), Oral Questions shall be taken on Monday 24th November to the Secretary of State for the Home Department and on Tuesday 25th November to the Secretary of State for Health; and the shuffles for these Oral Questions shall be held at 6.00 p.m. at this day's sitting or one hour after the conclusion of proceedings on this Motion, whichever is later.'.
	The amendment has been available in the Vote Office since 2.41 pm.

Greg Knight: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the light of the manuscript amendment, which I think most Opposition Members welcome, will there be an opportunity for the Leader of the House to make his position clear before the debate proceeds any further? If he is minded to accept the amendment—I hope that he is—we may well not need to continue this debate for much longer.

Madam Deputy Speaker: If the debate concludes naturally, it is possible that the Leader of the House will have the opportunity to respond.

Greg Knight: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not seeking to challenge the Chair, but I think that it would be most helpful if we could hear from the Leader of the House at this stage, rather than at the end of the debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that, although I have read out the manuscript amendment which is available in the Vote Office, it has not yet been moved.

Stuart Bell: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins).

Nick Hawkins: Shortly before the points of order that we have just heard and your announcement, Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) pointed out to the hon. Gentleman the peculiar behaviour of Ministers in relation to the Criminal Justice Bill. In talking about the constitutional settlement, does he recognise that many Opposition Members feel that the other place has a particular revising function on criminal justice matters because of the presence there of Law Lords? Does he recognise that, as part and parcel of that position, the expressed views of the Lord Chief Justice, who has been very critical of the Home Secretary's legislation—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have repeated from the Chair on more than one occasion that we are not currently debating the merits of that particular measure.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your comments, and to the hon. Gentleman for making those points. As a brief answer, I must first point out that the Law Lords do not vote or participate in Lords debates. Secondly, the same arguments that he advanced on criminal justice were made on taxation in the early 1900s, when exactly the same point was made. I shall not pursue that issue any further.

Greg Knight: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention, if he will listen for a moment, to paragraph (1) of the motion? The House would be interested to hear his views about that paragraph, as the Leader of the House did not give any justification for its inclusion. Why should we be denied the right to ask questions on Monday and Tuesday next week?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is speaking to an amendment that has yet to be moved.

Greg Knight: With the greatest of respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was referring not to the manuscript amendment, but to paragraph (1) of the motion, which says that we shall not have questions.

Stuart Bell: I simply refer to the manuscript amendment that will be before the House, which proposes that oral questions to the Home Department shall be taken on Monday and that questions to the Department of Health shall be taken after that.

Kali Mountford: I think that the whole House will be surprised by the imaginative move that has been made by Opposition Back Benchers. Given that it has been possible to make such a move during this debate, is my hon. Friend as surprised as I am that those on the Opposition Front Bench were not able to make a similar decision late last night, just as the rest of this House had to make its decision about considering the motion at all?

Stuart Bell: I shall leave it to the Opposition to wonder what they were doing at 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock in the morning. They certainly filled the Tea Room and the Library, although I did not get as far as the bars.

Mark Francois: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has been most courteous in giving way numerous times to allow hon. Members to make contributions during his speech. May I bring him back to the important point made by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who explained to the House that a compromise had been in the offing this morning? As I understand it, the process of ping-pong is designed to promote compromise; in fact, a compromise was very nearly reached, but the Government reneged on it. Much of his argument has been based on saying that the other place has been intransigent, but is it not unfair to blame the other place for intransigence when the Government had just about agreed a compromise, but then reneged on it?

Stuart Bell: As I said earlier, I shall not get into that issue or usurp the authority of the Leader of the House.
	I am dealing with the question whether the supremacy of this House can be challenged by the Lords, and I am grateful to the House and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the time to speak about that and to make constitutional points. If we do have oral questions to the Home Department on Monday, I will be asking why the Prime Minister has not seen the Queen to recommend new peerages, why we are not debating a new Parliament Bill and why we are not going to restrict the powers of the Lords to seek to usurp the will of this Chamber, and I will be explaining why I will always seek to protect this House of Commons in terms of constitutional law so that its supremacy can remain intact in the interests of my constituents, Members of Parliament and the country.

Paul Tyler: I beg to move a manuscript amendment, in line 2, leave out paragraph (1) and insert
	'(1) notwithstanding paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 22 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments), Oral Questions shall be taken on Monday 24th November to the Secretary of State for the Home Department and on Tuesday 25th November to the Secretary of State for Health; and the shuffles for these Oral Questions shall be held at 6.00 p.m. at this day's sitting or one hour after the conclusion of proceedings on this Motion, whichever is later.'.
	I am delighted, on behalf of my colleagues, to support the manuscript amendment that was tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and others. I had some sympathy with the sittings motion until I heard the frankly bogus arguments that the Leader of the House advanced in its favour. I want to return to the argument that he put forward earlier this afternoon.

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it be possible to move the manuscript amendment that has been accepted by Mr. Speaker on a point of order?

Hon. Members: The hon. Gentleman has moved it.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not think that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) had sought to move the amendment, so I called Mr. Tyler.

Paul Tyler: I have moved the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and his colleagues.
	I want to address the sittings motion and dispel some of the bogus constitutional nonsense that we heard from the Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman got any prizes for constitutional history. I was a historian and I can tell him, as a matter of fact, that the circumstances in 1911—I was not there but there was a Liberal Government—were totally different from what is happening now. In 1910 and 1911, issues were put before the people in a general election, so that was the context in which the House of Lords eventually had to back down. The circumstances are totally different today, as has been made perfectly clear by hon. Members of all parties, including Labour Back Benchers. None of the issues that the House of Lords has examined during recent hours were the subject of manifesto commitments or a mandate from the electorate. There is no way the Prime Minister could now go to the palace to ask for, or in which the monarch could give, the sort of assurances the hon. Gentleman talked about on the basis of the convention in 1910 and 1911 unless there was a general election.
	The hon. Gentleman has obviously not taken account of recent constitutional developments. The Prime Minister and leaders of all parties have said that there is no way that the House of Lords will contain a built-in majority for any one party in the future. Unless the new leader of the Conservative party goes back on that assurance—I am sure that he will not—no future Government will ever have a built-in majority in the second Chamber, and rightly so.
	The constitutional myths peddled by the Leader of the House revolve around precisely this issue: he said that the matters under consideration had been the subject of a democratic mandate to Members of this House, so the other House could not intervene. That is simply not true. It is possible that if there were a firm commitment to the creation of foundation trusts in the next Labour manifesto, that could be the case in future. It is equally true that if the next manifesto were to include a commitment to abolish jury trials in certain circumstances, Labour Members could then argue that their mandate would override the role of the House of Lords.
	However, as the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) said, the circumstances are nothing like as clear as that. The amendments that the other place has considered were originally tabled by the Government, and the Leader of the House refused to respond to that point at the Dispatch Box. It is simply not true to suggest that the discussions that are taking place in the other place are a challenge to this House and the Government's mandate because the amendments that they are considering were introduced by the Government. Perhaps the Government have changed their mind yet again.

Simon Burns: Would it help the hon. Gentleman's argument if I reminded him that not only do Labour Members not have a mandate from the electorate, they do not have one from their own party because the Labour party conference rejected the whole concept of foundation hospitals in October?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled on that.

Paul Tyler: As we all know, constitutionally speaking, we are not here at the behest of our party but at the behest of our electorate. The Leader of the House ignored the fact that there is no mandate for the issues that the other House is considering.

Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the House of Lords adjourned last night after representatives of my party and the Liberal Democrats had made the explicit point that adjournment would allow a cooling-off period so that we could discuss matters and reach agreement? That happened, but the Government then tabled their amendments.

Paul Tyler: That is an extremely important point. Parliament operates as one whole body—that is the significant constitutional point. It is seen as the High Court of Parliament. The procedure to which the hon. Gentleman refers is part of the parliamentary process.

David Heath: I was party to the discussions late last night and early this morning. Agreement was reached between Ministers and Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members. We struck an agreement but the Government reneged on it at 10 am today for no apparent reason and with no explanation.

Paul Tyler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that absolutely clear. I hope that Labour Members are listening. We are supposed to deal with matters in just such a way, which is why we listen to Ministers when they suggest a way to get out of such difficulties.

Tony Banks: Of course we could have continued with the procedure last night if Members of the other place had not decided to take to their beds somewhat earlier than us. The hon. Gentleman said that the two Houses form one Parliament, which is constitutionally true. However, speaking as a House of Commons man, he must agree that the will of this elected House should prevail over that of the unelected House. The electorate can deal with us, but they cannot deal with them down the Corridor.

Paul Tyler: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point but the question is not who prevails, but when they prevail. I am perfectly willing to be here on Monday and Tuesday. As he knows, this place works by discussion—Parliament means talking. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) was involved in discussions with Ministers in which a sensible compromise was reached. Ministers—not this House or that House but the Executive—pulled the plug on those discussions. The legislature—hon. Members on both sides of the House—has a right to hold the Executive to account. That is what my hon. Friend and Conservative Members were doing, and I hope that Labour Members appreciate that they also have a responsibility to hold the Executive to account.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman's argument would be strong, especially on foundation hospitals, if it were not for the fact that Liberal peers have already caved in. They accept that this House should have its say in the end. Surely he should now agree with the Liberal peers.

Paul Tyler: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the process—he has not been a Member for quite as long as the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). The whole point is that sensible conclusions may be reached through discussion, and such discussions are continuing.
	The whole point of the sittings motion is to allow more time to ensure that Parliament does its job properly—I have no problem with that whatsoever. My problem with the motion is that it is unnecessarily circumscribed. When Parliament sits, one of our most important functions is clearly to hold Ministers to account, which is why I am delighted to support the manuscript amendment. However, the motion does not provide specifically for urgent questions, so I hope that the Government will assure us that if any urgent questions are tabled on Monday or Tuesday, they may be taken. I hope that the Leader of the House will tell us that if important matters were to arise over the weekend, such as terrorism issues, the appropriate Secretary of State would make a statement to the House. Nothing in the motion makes that impossible, so I hope that it will happen.

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will know that Mr. Speaker has always been careful to say that Ministers and others in the Government should not make announcements before the House gets to hear of important decisions. Are you aware that the Government sent a press release to each trust in the country this morning for them to put out saying:
	"We are obviously very disappointed by the fact that Parliament has failed to pass the legislation that would have allowed us to apply for NHS Foundation Trust"
	status? It is said that consultation has taken place for some time and that favourable responses have been received to the application from a number of quarters. The press release continues:
	"We are however heartened by the Secretary of State for Health's statement to the House of Commons where he pledges himself to continue the process of handing power down to hospitals like us."

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Paul Tyler: I shall return to the arguments advanced by the Leader of the House at the outset of the debate. He was peddling a completely new constitutional theory about the relationship between the two Houses. I cannot remember what he studied at university at about the same time as myself, when we were both young Liberals, and he was a true radical. However, I know from my experience given the way in which the relationship between the two Houses has developed over the years, not only in terms of the Parliament Acts, to which the hon. Member for Middlesbrough referred, but of the evolution of the relationship, that it is extremely important that we give proper time for discussion between the two Houses.
	It is entirely at the behest of the Government's business managers how Bills come through during the course of the year. If those two Bills had been the subject of proper pre-legislative scrutiny, for example, of which the Leader of the House is in favour, and if they had come forward as draft Bills with proper discussion having taken place with outside interests as well as with Members, it might well have been possible for the right hon. Gentleman to bring to this place a carry-over motion. Both Houses have now accepted that where there is proper pre-legislative scrutiny of such Bills, a carry-over motion can be considered.

Greg Knight: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misled the House, and I am certain that it was inadvertent. He said that the original motion did not provide for allowing urgent questions. If he reads the first paragraph again, he will see that it refers specifically to Mr. Speaker being able to grant urgent questions.

Paul Tyler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I was relating my remarks rather more to the question of statements. I apologise if I misled him or other Members.
	I shall return to my central theme, which is the constitutional role and relationship of the two Houses. The Leader of the House will know—because he voted for it—that on 4 February I and a number of colleagues on both sides of the House voted for the other House to be elected. It happens that the Secretary of State for Health has since then said that because the other House is not elected it is not entitled to amend his Bill. The matter is in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government. If they do not want an ineffective House at the other end of the building, they are in a position to change the situation.
	The Prime Minister voted for a fully appointed House. Any suggestion that the legitimacy of part of this Parliament is inappropriate in dealing with this particular issue is prime nonsense. It is true that we are told—the Leader of the House may be able to confirm this—that a Bill will shortly come before us that will make modest changes to the constitutional position of the other House. As I read the Division lists in the other place, that would make no difference to the present situation and the two Bills that we have been discussing.

Peter Hain: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that what is at issue is not the right of the House of Lords to revise, scrutinise or come up with constructive amendments, but the right of the other place to veto? There is a distinction between a revising chamber and a vetoing chamber. What we have seen happening recently, and particularly yesterday, is the exercise of a power of veto, which is not acceptable to a democratically elected chamber—this Chamber—which is the supreme body of Parliament.

Paul Tyler: There are two reasons why that is obvious nonsense. First, the Government originally introduced the amendments under discussion. The right hon. Gentleman cannot get out of that one. Secondly, the House of Lords cannot insert a veto into the process. It can only ask for time, and that is precisely what it has done. There have already been discussions and an attempt to compromise, but the timing is in the hands of the Government. If they felt that they wanted more time, why did they leave it until this week to complete the legislative process? The Government's business managers set the calendar, not me, and not our colleagues at the other end of the building.
	Why are we in this situation? We are in it because the Government have mishandled the whole of the legislative process for the whole of the year. They have tried to get a gallon into a half-pint pot. They have taken some extremely difficult issues and attempted to deal with them in an extremely complicated way that has involved some substantial Bills. In the so-called spill-over Session—we could have had a longer one if the Government had so wished—we have had the so-called ping-pong.
	I hope that the Government have learned some lessons for the future. We need to have a different process. We need better consultation not just between the two Houses and not just between the different parties, but between the Government and their own Back Benchers. Anyone who listened to the formidable speeches delivered by Government Back Benchers yesterday must have been struck by how little Government Front-Bench Members have been listening to their own Members, let alone other Members.
	The timing of business is in the Government's hands, and the Government cannot wash their hands of the mess that they have made of this week. If we come back on Monday and Tuesday next week, that will not be down to the House of Lords. It will not be down to anyone in the House except the Government's business managers.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) for moving the amendment in my name and the names of my colleagues, which relieves me of the need to do so. However, I shall want to speak to it in due course.
	First, I shall pick up the theme that the hon. Gentleman has been pursuing: asking, which we must do in terms of the motion, how we have got ourselves into this position. I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis, which is that this is the culmination of a year of mismanagement by the Government. Indeed, it is worse than that: it is a classic case of the Government attempting to put too much legislation, and too much controversial legislation, into a limited Session.
	Here is where I part company with what has been said repeatedly from the Government Benches. The tragedy is that there is no time pressure in this place. Would that it were so. The tragedy of Parliament today is that the Government have so altered our procedures that they have complete control over what happens in this place. As a result, there are no longer any time pressures. That has become increasingly obvious as each year has passed with this Government in control. They have ruthlessly used their enormous numbers and huge majority to change the procedures of this place out of all recognition in such a way that Bills cannot be properly considered in Committee, as we know very much to our cost. All the other stages of consideration are so truncated that there is ample time in the House for almost any number of Bills.
	The problem for the Government, as I am happy to acknowledge, lies in the House of Lords. That is excellent for the people of this country. The position is that the House of Lords remains what it is and should be: a constitutional backstop that provides protection against a Government who are abusing their enormous majority in the House of Commons and threatening the constitutional balance that we have cherished for centuries. That is why it is so odd that Labour Members have sought refuge—they have done so today— in the peculiar argument that the House of Lords has no legitimacy. The House of Lords is their House of Lords. It is the House of Lords that the Government have created. It is not the House of Lords that we have known for a very long time, and knew until only a few years ago. It is the Government's creation.

Roger Gale: Is it not a fact that the other place is not only a House of Lords that the Government created, but a House of Lords that the Prime Minister voted to retain in the face of fierce opposition from Labour Back Benchers and Conservative Members?

Eric Forth: Yes, it is Blair's Lords—that is what we are talking about. When the Prime Minister's supporters on the Labour Benches criticise the House of Lords, they are criticising the Prime Minister, because the current House of Lords is his creation and he is the one who is sustaining that House in its present form. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) to say that he wants more peers, he wants this and he wants that—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman speaking to the motion or the amendment?

Eric Forth: The right hon. Gentleman is attempting to reply to the debate, which has been running since the Leader of the House initiated it. He covered all these matters, and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, whose speech I enjoyed—as, I think, did you, Madam Deputy Speaker—also referred to them repeatedly and frequently. Now I am attempting to reply to the debate—as I hope we still do in the House of Commons—to which the hon. Gentleman contributed so eloquently.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Reference to certain sections of the debate is fine. I just hope that we are not getting into too much detail.

Eric Forth: Oh, perish the thought, Madam Deputy Speaker. I pride myself on being somewhat of a generalist—I like to sweep the horizon of an issue. Not for me the mundane details of a Bill, even though earlier, if you did not invite me to do so, you certainly gave me permission to explore some of those details, and I might come to that later, if I am pressed. However, because of your guidance, I shall not pursue the matter that I was addressing—I just wanted to touch on the matters that the hon. Member for North Cornwall analysed, and to say how much I support him.
	The question that arises from the motion is why the Government felt it necessary at this stage, on this day, which we thought would be the day of Prorogation, to table in a panic this rather ill-thought-out motion to provide the possibility of further sitting days in order to save their legislative programme—I assume that that is the reason behind the motion. We are confronted with the possibility, which I welcome, of the House sitting on Monday and Tuesday next week.
	That raises another interesting question. Why have the Government not given us the option of sitting tomorrow—Friday? The Government are afraid of Fridays for some reason. Apart from the excellent Fridays on which we consider private Members' Bills, which I value very highly, Fridays have disappeared from the parliamentary calendar altogether. The question that we have to ask ourselves is, what happened to Friday?

Patrick McLoughlin: I know that, like me, my right hon. Friend welcomed the Leader of the House producing a calendar—an innovation introduced by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). Is my right hon. Friend aware that the calendar produced a few weeks ago covering the next Session lists tomorrow as a possible sitting day? In that case, why do we not have that option available to us now?

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. In that sense, Friday has doubly disappeared—

Paul Goodman: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

Eric Forth: Yes, in a moment, but I am enjoying my Friday and I want to elaborate on it before giving way to my hon. Friend. This mystery has arisen directly from the motion before us today. I believe that the House in its generosity would grant that the Government need more time, given that they have cocked up their legislative programme so badly and got themselves into such conflict with the House of Lords that they now need to make provision for extra time. The question I pose—with direct reference to the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker—is: why not tomorrow?

David Wilshire: It is probably an impertinence to ask my right hon. Friend whether he has looked at the Order Paper. The answer to his question, why not tomorrow, lies therein. Under the title "D. Other future business" is listed:
	"Friday 21st November . . . DRAFT CONSTITUTIONAL TREATY ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE (REFERENDUM) BILL: Second Reading.
	Member in Charge: Mr Frank Field".
	Perhaps that is why the Government do not want us to sit tomorrow.

Eric Forth: I think that my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. That in part shows why the Government are so afraid of Fridays. Fridays, in my memory, were a proper, legitimate, normal parliamentary day in which we conducted parliamentary business, including scrutiny of legislation.

John Taylor: My right hon. Friend will remember how precious Fridays were to me. It was on a Friday that I introduced my High Hedges Bill.

Eric Forth: Yes, I remember that with great affection. My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to congratulate him on the fact that the Government sneaked the provisions of his excellent Bill into their Anti-social Behaviour Bill, without hardly anyone except me noticing.

Paul Goodman: Would my right hon. Friend be prepared at any point in his speech to give way to a Labour Member to allow them to say how much pleasure they would take from being able to come in on a Friday to represent their constituents?

Eric Forth: Yes, I would be, but I should be astonished if any did so.

Keith Simpson: Referring back directly to why Friday has disappeared, does my right hon. Friend think that because the Prime Minister and the President of the United States of America have gone north, rather like a mediaeval court, many Ministers and their hon. Friends will also be in the north tomorrow? Perhaps Parliament could meet up in the north tomorrow.

Eric Forth: I shall not allow myself to be dragged too far in that direction, because my hon. Friend is an eminent historian. He and I know that in the 13th and 14th centuries, Parliament moved with the monarch. Since our new monarch is to be in Sedgefield, perhaps sitting there would be appropriate. However, I shall not allow myself to be diverted, because I have a great deal to say on the substance of the motion.
	I did not think to table another manuscript amendment to insert "Friday" into the motion—in fact, it occurs to me to try to do that after I resume my seat, since it would give the House the proper option of sitting tomorrow. Perhaps one of my hon. Friends will do so—I simply make the suggestion. As things stand, we are left with the possibility of the House sitting on Monday and Tuesday next week. That brings us to the substance of the manuscript amendment that stands in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, which I am pleased that Mr. Speaker saw fit to accept and which was so ably moved by the hon. Member for North Cornwall, for whose pledge of support for the amendment I thank him.

Greg Knight: My right hon. Friend's views on what he calls the wretched Select Committee on Modernisation are well known. Does he appreciate how much it warms our heart to hear him speaking to an amendment on a topical question, which strongly resembles a debate initiated by the Modernisation Committee in September last year?

Eric Forth: Indeed, urgent questions are one of the very few points on which I find myself in agreement with the work of the so-called Modernisation Committee. One of the many areas in which the Government, having almost killed it off, have absolutely refused to enliven the House of Commons is in respect of urgent questions. It is a great irony, is it not, that their lordships have urgent questions, but the Commons does not. That is one of the many respects in which the House of Lords acts as a far more effective parliamentary Chamber and holds the Government to account sadly much more effectively than does the House of Commons.

Paul Tyler: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the House accepts the amendment that he and I both support, we might be creating a rather useful convention, given that at short notice we will bring a Secretary of State to the House to answer questions? That is, if I may say so, a highly effective way of ensuring that this House does its proper job of holding Ministers to account.

Eric Forth: Indeed, and it is one of the arguments that I intended to deploy in the hope of persuading the House to support our amendment, if I can call it that. Accepting the amendment would provide the opportunity for an experiment to determine whether such a degree of immediacy in questioning would work to the benefit of the House. I am sure that it would.
	By the way, this is an appropriate time to appeal to hon. Members present and elsewhere to table their questions now for the Home Department on Monday and the Department of Health on Tuesday. We have been given an opportunity and I hope that my hon. Friends will avail themselves of it.

David Wilshire: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would be remarkably easy to table the questions? As so many written questions are being sent back to Members offering a reply shortly, all hon. Members would have to do is table the mountain of paperwork that the Government have been shunting around the place.

Eric Forth: That would be one approach. Another would be to bear in mind that few Members will avail themselves of the opportunity that my amendment offers, so the chances of being selected are high. This is a bargain offer, which I hope hon. Members will find irresistible.

Roger Gale: My right hon. Friend has moved on from Friday. I am reluctant to return to it, but I am perplexed. I recall the Leader of the House complaining bitterly that we were not allowed to sit through the night last night because of the House of Lords. Although technically we cannot sit tomorrow, if the House sits through the night, it can continue to sit through tomorrow. Not for the first time, the House would be in Thursday while the rest of the world was in Friday. So tomorrow is available to us. If the Government were so anxious to sit through last night to complete the business, which we all want on the statute book, why not do it tonight?

Eric Forth: That raises another interesting matter, which is that Labour Members complain that we were not allowed to continue to sit last night, whereas they have complained for years about late-night sittings. They must make up their minds. I love late-night sittings—

Keith Simpson: So does Mrs. Forth.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend refers to Mrs. Forth. He is on dangerous territory as to whether she approves of me being here late at night. I invite him to discuss that directly with her, and I wish him the best of luck.

Keith Simpson: I withdraw my comment.

Eric Forth: Very wise, too.
	Labour Members cannot make up their minds. In most weeks in most parliamentary years they are desperate to get out of the building as quickly as possible and scuttle off to wherever it is they go—except for the one time when they think it might help the Government in their difficulties. Suddenly, they are prepared to sit late at night. That strikes me as inconsistent and odd.

Nick Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that many of us think it odd that Labour Members have complained about the House of Lords rising early whereas in fact, thanks to the Government's guillotines and change of hours in our House, the Lords has sat for far more days and for far later than us for the past couple of Sessions?

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter, because he allows me to speculate—I am sure this is in order—that if the House sits on Monday and Tuesday, as the motion provides, and if we have questions, as my amendment would provide, their lordships presumably would sit at the same time to deal with the business moving between the two Houses. That would allow us to reflect on the pattern of business here and in the other place. It is significant that their lordships sit for more days of the year than we do and for longer hours. Frankly—I get no pleasure in saying this—they do more work than us, and carry it out more effectively than us. That is why I disagree with Labour Members who keep going on about the supremacy of the House of Commons. It is no longer supreme; the Government in the Commons are supreme—a very different thing altogether. That is why, in parliamentary and constitutional terms, we increasingly look to the House of Lords—it gives me no joy to say this—to hold the Government to account. We are failing because the Government no longer allow us to do that because of changes to our procedures.

Roger Gale: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but those of us who have been in this place for a while notice Whips scuttling around and realise that there is the possibility of a closure. The amendment, which several of us have tabled, was not moved until about 15 minutes ago. I hope that you will allow a proper debate on it before considering a closure.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have received no request for a closure. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was in the Chair when the amendment was moved and know exactly how long it has been debated.

Eric Forth: We are grateful for that observation, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	We have a real prospect of sitting on Monday and Tuesday. That is made more likely by what the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) brought to our attention in her incisive way. Having been at the other end of the building observing the proceedings in another place, she let us know that the legitimate negotiations that take place at this stage of the Session have broken down due to a complete loss of faith by the Government. In one sense, that is the Government's problem, but in another sense, it is everyone's problem. We are here to deal with such matters and to hold the Government to account. We are watching carefully—this is what the motion is about—what is happening here and in another place while judging how far the provisions of the sittings motion will be required.
	That brings me back to another point raised mainly by Labour Members. Why should either House sit indefinitely or all through the night tonight simply to help the Government out of their self-made difficulties? Why not finish at a reasonable hour tonight, here and in another place, and resume our deliberations on Monday, as the motion provides? What is so wrong with that? It would be interesting to hear the preference of the Leader of the House or his deputy. Would the Government prefer us to deal with the matters later and later into the night and go, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) said, into what for everyone else would be tomorrow, but for us would be today? Or would they prefer us to have a cooling-off period over the weekend in which the Commons and their lordships reflect on what has caused the difficulties, where the differences remain and how the negotiations could succeed? That would allow us to return on Monday in a calmer frame of mind, with all our questions tabled as a result of my amendment, which I hope the House will support, to have a proper parliamentary day with relevant questions, proper debate and further deliberations. Surely that would be a civilised way of approaching the problem.
	I hope that there are many contributions on the motion and my amendment, because it will be interesting and instructive to hear what colleagues on both sides of the House have to say. I cannot believe that anyone would want to oppose my amendment. It is permissive: it would allow hon. Members to table questions and to turn next Monday and Tuesday into much more lively and relevant parliamentary days than the Government contemplated in their original motion. All those possibilities are before us.
	The second provision of the motion is that
	"the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords has been received and a Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at that sitting has reported."
	That part of the motion has been neglected hitherto, but it is worth a sideways glance at this stage.
	Reasons Committees are a neglected corner of our parliamentary activities. Once, I took it upon myself to initiate a short, but I thought very relevant, debate on the membership of a Reasons Committee—something to which I hope to return many more times. I have always wondered why the House accepts so meekly and without any discussion the proposed membership of such Committees. They are an important part of our proceedings. They do important and interesting work and yet we usually sit there, assuming that they happen more or less automatically, and allow these people—who ever they may be—to be appointed to the Committee to speak on our behalf.

David Wilshire: rose—

Eric Forth: Surely it would be much better if we could appoint a representative Back Bencher to a Reasons Committee so that we could have a voice on it, rather than it being stitched up by the usual channels—talking of which, I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

David Wilshire: Is my right hon. Friend aware of what can happen with a Reasons Committee? The guillotines introduced by this wretched Government mean that certain matters may not even have been discussed. We then vote to reject what the other place has proposed. Subsequently, a Reasons Committee is sent to the room behind the Chair to draw up a reason for rejecting something on which the House has not even expressed an opinion. Does he not find that absolutely extraordinary?

Eric Forth: I do, but I do not want at this stage—there may be an occasion for it in the future and perhaps my hon. Friend and I could work on that—to query the whole point of Reasons Committees, what they do and what they are supposed to contribute to our parliamentary proceedings, although that would be of real use.
	For the purposes of today's debate, and to attempt to keep in order, I accept that the Reasons Committee is a given—for the moment. We are considering the implications if we start to take the Reasons Committee much more seriously, in terms of the motion before us. For example, what might happen if the House decided to take a more direct interest in the Reasons Committee and to have a little debate about its membership—or, perhaps, to move amendments to its membership to satisfy ourselves that we were being properly represented on it, instead of it being the usual stitch-up? That could have implications for the terms of the motion, which is,
	"the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords has been received and any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed"—
	I would rather say elected—
	"at that sitting has reported."
	Potential implications for the timing of the sittings on Monday and Tuesday arise directly from that provision and I do not think that that has been properly considered hitherto.
	This debate gives me the opportunity to flag up to colleagues that they may want to pay much closer attention to the Reasons Committee to see whether we can make it a more effective and representative element.
	All in all, I hope that we can resolve in a proper and civilised way the outstanding matters with regard to the contentious legislation that is moving back and forward as we speak. I have never accepted the analysis that has been attempted by the Prime Minister today and repeated by the Leader of the House, that if their lordships oppose one key part of a Bill, the entire Bill has to be thrown away. I see no logic in that. It is a crude political play by the Government, but it will not wash. No one out there will believe a word of it. We can have all the good things that have been agreed in both of the Bills in question; it is the Government's decision whether they want to throw everything away for the sake of one element. We are all part of that decision, of course.
	I do not believe that the public will accept that part of the analysis that the Prime Minister and his friends have been trying to put forward—"If you won't let me have this part of my Bill, the whole Bill is going to disappear", said in that petulant tone to which we have become used. Let us have none of that. Let us hope that there will be a proper discussion and negotiation to resolve these difficulties. If that cannot be the case, however, I am more than prepared to accept the thrust of the motion—hopefully, with my amendment—so that we can contemplate some valuable sitting time next Monday and Tuesday. I shall draw my comments to a close so that other hon. Members can voice their support for my amendment.
	A potential problem lies at the far end of this process. It is possible that if we found ourselves sitting at length next Tuesday, a direct conflict could arise with the Queen's Speech on Wednesday—the state opening of Parliament. I do not know whether anyone has given that much thought. Have the Government devised any way in which to resolve that? We should be told what the Government intend to do if we reach midnight next Tuesday without resolving the matters of conflict between this House and another place. That is a highly relevant consideration. If the Government take the trouble to table a motion to provide for Monday and Tuesday sittings, surely they have thought beyond that and considered what might happen if the Tuesday sitting were prolonged.

Tony Banks: The right hon. Gentleman presents interesting hypothetical stuff—I am finding it most enjoyable. Would he care for a wager? I should like to wager 25 guineas with him that we will not sit on Monday. What does he say to that?

Eric Forth: I shall not take the hon. Gentleman's bet—I suspect that he is a much more astute gambler than I shall ever be. I hope and expect that matters will be resolved today. I know that the motion is a threat that the Government are dangling mainly over their Members and supporters, knowing their desperation to get away from this place on almost every occasion. The motion does not frighten my hon. Friends and me—we should love to be here on Monday and Tuesday—but I bet that it scares the hell out of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

David Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman has the advantage of us because we have constituencies and constituents who like to see us from time to time. The good people of Bromley and Chislehurst do not give a damn whether they see the right hon. Gentleman.

Eric Forth: I invite the hon. Gentleman to come with Mrs. Forth and me to Waitrose in Bromley, where we are to be seen every Saturday morning and where I move happily among my constituents, blessing them as I go.
	The motion is sensible and I hope that hon. Members agree that the amendment, too, is sensible.

Simon Burns: My right hon. Friend is wise not to be tempted by the wager of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who may know a little more than my right hon. Friend. If we sit late today or on Monday or Tuesday, the Criminal Justice Bill is the only measure that we can discuss.

Eric Forth: I am grateful for that helpful information, which demonstrates that we are likely to resolve such matters today in a proper way and we will not need to take advantage of the motion. Nevertheless, I hope that the House will see fit to approve the motion so that we can do our job properly. I therefore also hope that hon. Members will support the amendment.

Crispin Blunt: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for accepting the amendment. Accepting a manuscript amendment an hour after the debate has begun is unusual if not unprecedented. It is an indication of the attitude of the Chair, if I may be impertinent enough to impute an attitude to the Chair, to the Government's conduct and their business management.
	I want to speak briefly about the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has made it clear that we are highly unlikely to sit on Monday and Tuesday.

Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman is speaking about the amendment and others have asked questions about the subject, I want to make it clear that the Government will not accept it. The sittings motion provides for the completion of any unfinished business between the Commons and the Lords on Monday and Tuesday if necessary. If we can complete the business today, we are willing to sit as long as anybody wishes tonight to achieve that. Perhaps that policy will help the hon. Gentleman when he speaks about the amendment.

Crispin Blunt: I am sorry that I gave way. That intervention was extremely disappointing. Given that it was suggested that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would be unwise to take a bet from the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) on the basis that we are unlikely to be here on Monday and Tuesday, the amendment provides a useful opportunity to establish the principle that if the House is likely to sit, it is appropriate in all normal circumstances for questions to be tabled to Departments. I thought that if the House was unlikely to sit, it would in all normal circumstances be appropriate for questions to Government Departments to be tabled. I do not understand the objection, either in principle or in fact. We are here as a Parliament—as a House of Commons—to hold the Government to account, and if the House is to sit, Ministers should be able to come here.

Greg Knight: Was not the intervention by the Leader of the House disgraceful? He was saying, in effect, that Ministers might be around, but would not be open to scrutiny.

Crispin Blunt: It was both disgraceful and disappointing, and in a sense typical of the way in which the Government have managed their entire business. Everything must be stitched up, down to the last detail, with the least possible opportunity for the House of Commons to hold the Government to account.
	We need only look at the motion to see how unusual it is. Next to it, in brackets, appear the words "Until any hour". When I was elected in 1997, that was the norm. It is, perhaps, a sad testimony to the lack of stamina among Labour Members that over the past six and a half years the Government have ensured that "Until any hour" rarely appears on the Order Paper, and that therefore the House of Commons seldom has an opportunity to explore both sides of an issue properly. Nowadays "No debate" is the norm. No doubt the Government would like that to apply to everything, so that there would be no debates on anything and we would simply be Lobby fodder, with no chance of discussing the issues.
	Tragically, that is what the House has actually become, because of the Government's total lack of respect for Parliament as an institution. What was so extraordinary about the speech of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) was that he made much of this being a democratic Chamber. In fact it is a cipher, a tool of the Executive. Until Members exercise their responsibilities with the bravery shown by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) to stand up for the rights of the House of Commons, and for what we believe in and know to be the truth, the House will remain a cipher—even compared to the House of Lords, with its minimal powers of delay and scrutiny.

Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman reminded us that he came here in 1997. I seem to remember making endless speeches rather similar to his between 1983 and 1997, when his party was in Government, and I do not recall a Tory Back-Bench rebellion on the scale of the rebellion we have seen on this occasion. I do not think the hon. Gentleman should point the finger at us and suggest that we are not trying to hold the Executive to account.

Crispin Blunt: The rebellion seemed to be going quite well until there was a possibility of the rebels winning, when it collapsed in short order. We observed the operations of the Labour Whips and others. Had the previous scale of the rebellion been sustained, the legislation on foundation hospitals would have been knocked back.

Nigel Evans: I was elected in 1992, and I am sure that my hon. Friend and other Members will remember the great Bob Cryer, who used to hold the Executive to account nightly. We would discuss into the early hours of the morning a number of subjects that were open to debate, but that opportunity has now been removed.

Crispin Blunt: Of course, one commends hon. Members on exercising their own judgment on issues like foundation hospitals or the right to trial by jury instead of adopting the views of the Executive. However, the real disaster is that Government Members who are not in the Executive have been party to shredding the House's ability to do its job properly, including even scrutinising legislation. I have served on Standing Committees, as have other hon. Members, which are now subject to a guillotine and timetable. If our constituents knew that vast amounts of legislation and dozens of clauses go through without any scrutiny at all they would be astonished. I do not think that they are aware of the fact that we simply do not do our job as a legislature. It is hardly surprising that the only effective and detailed work to hold the Government to account is taking place in the House of Lords. That is a serious reproach to Members who are not part of the Executive, and is also a reproach to the Executive, who are not prepared to open themselves up to scrutiny. They are not even prepared to open themselves up in principle to scrutiny by allowing questions to the Home Office and the Department of Health in the unlikely event that we are here on Monday and Tuesday.

Roger Gale: Is not one reason why the other place has had to table so many amendments that a great deal of legislation has gone through Committee and, indeed, the House without proper debate? Is that not why many amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill have already had to be accepted by the Government, and is it not the case that we are only talking about two more?

Crispin Blunt: Absolutely. My hon. Friend speaks with enormous authority as a member of the Chairmen's Panel. As a Committee Chairman, he has witnessed Committees being unable to do their job. That should be a serious reproach to us all, and it must change. We simply cannot do our job properly if Bills and other legislation go through the House without any consideration at all.
	I do not know whether it is unprecedented for Mr. Speaker to accept a manuscript amendment an hour after a debate has started, but it is certainly highly unusual. However, it was accepted and would establish the principle that there would be questions to the Executive on Monday and Tuesday if the House were sitting. It was utterly symptomatic of the Government's behaviour that the Leader of the House should say that they are not prepared to accept the amendment.

Phil Woolas: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the inclusion in the sittings of the House motion of a provision for urgent questions is intended to assist the House, as it allows important and urgent questions to be tabled without the obstacle of a three-day notice period, which is required under the usual procedures?

Crispin Blunt: Unless I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, urgent questions can be allowed in any event by application to Mr. Speaker on the day. We have established that new procedure, and there is no reason why the position should be any different under the amendment. Urgent questions could be taken, just as the Home Secretary was dragged to the House yesterday to answer an urgent question about the breach of security at Buckingham palace—[Hon. Members: "Dragged?] In response to Government Members, the Prime Minister, as usual, was not entirely at one with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but truth, when he was asked about the matter at Prime Minister's questions and said that the Home Secretary would make a statement later. The Home Secretary did not make a statement—he came to the House to answer a question that Mr. Speaker had allowed. That is symptomatic of the way in which the Executive treat the House, as is the way in which the Leader of the House said that there is no question that he will allow questions to the Executive on Monday and Tuesday.
	The amendment was carefully tabled, thanks to the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and the Table Office, to ensure that it identifies the correct Departments—the Home Department on Monday and the Department of Health on Tuesday. By happy coincidence, those are the Departments that are scheduled to answer questions on the next Monday and Tuesday that the House sits, so there would be no disruption to the usual timetable for the tabling of questions. Given the issues at stake, the amendment should be passed on its merits, in the teeth of opposition from the Executive, because it would give hon. Members the opportunity to question the Executive about trial by jury on Monday and foundation hospitals and other health issues on Tuesday.
	I want to conclude by replying to the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough about the role of the House of Lords and the impertinence, as he sees it, of its daring to resist the will of the House of Commons. There is such a thing as a democratic mandate, which comes through the contract that we make with our electorate when we stand for office on the basis of our party's manifesto and, no doubt, our own additional material. I am certain that not one Labour Member was elected on the basis of manifesto commitments to introduce foundation hospitals, which enable some hospitals to gain different access to capital funding from others, or to abolish the right to jury trials.

Ronnie Campbell: When the Tories were in power, they did not put the poll tax in their manifesto, nor the sacking of 30,000 miners.

Crispin Blunt: In fact, the introduction of the community charge was part of the Conservative party's 1987 manifesto. It was already in the process of being delivered in Scotland owing to the difficulty of dealing with its rate revaluation—the reason why the policy was conceived in the first place. It is notable that the Government are encountering similar difficulties as a result of loading such a weight on to the council tax, which is a curious hybrid of rates and the community charge—[Hon. Members: What has that got to with the motion?"]. I am replying to the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell). I am sure that if I am not in order, Mr. Speaker will do his job more than adequately—but of course I am grateful for the guidance of Labour Members.
	Under the Salisbury convention, which has existed since 1948, the other place does not oppose measures that the governing party puts through on the basis of the manifesto on which it was elected. Now, however, the Government are driving through measures that have come as a total surprise to their supporters and are a matter of enormous controversy within their own party. Moreover, as the hon. and learned Member for Redcar said, we now have the extraordinary business of amendments that were tabled in the name of Baroness Scotland in another place—

Peter Hain: That is not true.

Crispin Blunt: Will the Leader of the House at least accept that they were agreed between representatives of all the parties?

Phil Woolas: I want to put on the record that the amendments were not tabled by the Government.

Crispin Blunt: I am very happy to accept that they were not tabled, but they were agreed by representatives of the three parties. Those were the terms of the agreement, but—such is the controversy surrounding the measures—Baroness Scotland, who presumably thought that she was negotiating properly on behalf of the Government, now appears to have had her position vetoed by the Home Secretary. It is my judgment, and a judgment that I have heard being voiced privately by Labour Members, that the Home Secretary is behaving in the most extraordinarily unreasonable fashion—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has quite rightly said that I would be able to help him out if he ever strayed. He is now straying well away from the motion.

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful for your guidance in keeping me on the straight and narrow, Mr. Speaker.
	The point that I was attempting to make, in answer to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, was that the Salisbury convention holds, and that the Government would not be in this mess of having to table this motion asking us to sit on Monday and Tuesday if they accepted the right of the House of Lords to ask the House of Commons to think again. We are being asked to think again about one very profound legal principle that has sat at the heart of our proceedings as a nation for nearly 1,000 years—the right to a trial by one's peers.
	It is not unreasonable for the Government to seek extra time to discuss that issue; nor is it unreasonable for their lordships to go on asking us to think again. We should do so. I support the motion, as amended, and I think that it should be carried to give us the time to think again. We should accept that, given the enormity of the principle at stake—and the fact that the Government have had to table this motion because the measure did not appear in their manifesto, which is why it is being opposed—it is appropriate to allow the House of Lords to ask us to think again. We should not then return to the issue. We have seen all the difficulties involved in tabling this motion.
	Hon. Members who are not members of the Executive should certainly consider very carefully the amendment that has been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne and me. In the unlikely event that we play ping-pong with their lordships until Tuesday, it would be appropriate—

Andrew Love: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The original Lords amendment was rejected by the House of Commons by 17 votes. When it came back and we were asked to think again, it was rejected by 41 votes. Assuming that it comes back again and is rejected by an even larger number of votes, should we continue to think again?

Crispin Blunt: The hon. Gentleman has been as badly wrong-footed as the Department of Health by events down the Corridor. It would appear that the Department has sent out a press release saying how regrettable it is that Parliament has rejected foundation hospitals through the vote in the House of Commons being overturned by the vote in their lordships' House. The Department has also given instructions to NHS trusts as to what they should say about that, and asked them to try to gain support for foundation hospitals in the country. I say with some regret, however, that it appears that one party in the other place—

Paul Tyler: I have had careful guidance on this matter, and, in fact, the opposition from the Conservative peers was withdrawn before any spokesman from the Liberal Democrats made a contribution.

Crispin Blunt: If that is the case, I am happy to accept what the hon. Gentleman says.

Oliver Heald: I do not know whether my hon. Friend noticed that the draft press release sent out by the Department of Health to the trusts says that the Secretary of State could delegate these powers to the trusts anyway. So what have we been doing?

Crispin Blunt: That is a most extraordinary statement. This press release that was put out and then withdrawn will have to bear a serious amount of examination, although it is plainly not the subject of the motion before us.
	I urge Labour Members, who will obviously want to support the motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House, to accept also the amendment that has been tabled simply to say that in the unlikely event of us being here on Monday and Tuesday—

Bob Ainsworth: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—
	The House divided: Ayes 331, Noes 175.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 330.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That, at the sittings on Monday 24th and Tuesday 25th November—
	(1) notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 21 (Time for taking questions), no Questions shall be taken, provided that, one hour after the commencement of the sitting, the Speaker may interrupt the proceedings in order to permit Questions to be asked which are in his opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business, statements to be made by Ministers or personal explanations to be made by Members; and
	(2) the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords has been received and any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at that sitting has reported.

Andrew Lansley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you whether you have had any indication from the Secretary of State for Health that he intends to come and tell the House that, in the wake of the decision by the House of Lords not to insist on its amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Wait for it. Does the Secretary of State intend to tell us about the fact that, none the less, he or his Department, acting on his behalf, had sent to potential foundation trusts a draft press release saying that, even if he were to lose on the legislation, he has powers—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman. I must be able to hear him.

Andrew Lansley: The press release said that the Secretary of State had powers that he could give to trusts to provide them with local control and that he had summoned them to a meeting in London next Tuesday. If he has powers that he can give to hospitals for local control without the legislation that this House has just passed, perhaps he should come to the House and tell us in the wake of our debates yesterday what those powers are and when he will provide them.

Mr. Speaker: I say to the hon. Gentleman that I have not had an approach from the Secretary of State for Health. Perhaps that is because I have been busy in the Chamber, so I have been too busy to deal with any other matters.

Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, we are likely to get back detailed proposals on the Criminal Justice Bill. They will deal with two matters, namely jury trials and bad character. Last night, the selection list was so ordered that we were able to deal with jury trials but we could make no reference at all to bad character because of the guillotine. Would it be possible for you to reorder the selection list so that, in any event, we could deal first with bad character and then go on to jury trials; otherwise bad character would not have been discussed today or yesterday?

Mr. Speaker: I have no power to change the order of consideration. Grouping is a matter for the Member in charge of the Bill. Of course, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks will have been heard.

Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may press you a little further. Would it possible for a Member such as myself to table an amendment to the order of consideration so that we could reorder the consideration of amendments?

Mr. Speaker: I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it would not be appropriate to do so at this time. In order to help him, perhaps he should seek advice from the Clerk, who will be able to assist him on procedural matters.

John Gummer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept your ruling, of course, but will you bear it in mind that there have been successive points of order to ask for the Chair's help to defend the rights of Back Benchers to discuss parts of Bills—that has become regular? I understand that in this specific case, you have acted entirely as your powers allow. However, it is possible for the Speaker to give the impression to those in charge of the business of the House that there is growing unhappiness among perfectly reasonable people about their inability to discuss large sections of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I believe that the House agreed to a programme motion on Tuesday, and I am bound by that.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Order [10 November]
	On resuming—

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the Government have now caved in and agreed to the position adopted by Opposition and other right hon. and hon. Members. How long does it take the Government to come to the House, say sorry and produce the amendments that we need to conclude our business?

Peter Hain: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is utter rubbish. The truth is that on all the key clauses we have held our ground. We stood our ground in this elected House of Commons against the unelected second Chamber, and the will of the Commons has triumphed. We have stopped jury nobbling; we have a common-sense approach on fraud—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not want to embark on a whole new debate. Those are hardly points of order for me.

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House is in a quandary—we do not know what is happening. Rather than the Leader of the House making rather partisan points in a most extraordinary manner, may we be told precisely what is happening, how long we will be here and what the outcome will be?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can help. We will deal with the business motion, which we must now do. After that, the House will suspend in the way that we have recently been doing. Before we meet again, which, all being well, will be in about an hour, the papers will be available and all will be made clear.

Patrick McLoughlin: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to raise a point of order?

Patrick McLoughlin: Yes. On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Bearing in mind what the Leader of the House has just told us—that everything is going swimmingly and the Government have everything right—why are we facing this delay?

Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely for the good order of the House, for which we can only look to the Chair, you can give us a clear indication of the precise position. Many hon. Members are anxious to sort this matter out. We are delighted that the Government have given way, and I hope that Ministers will be a little more gracious later this evening than the Leader of the House was just now, but it would be helpful if you gave us some indication of what is to happen, and when.

Brian Sedgemore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you can help the House. I was delighted to see the shadow Home Secretary on television a few moments ago saying exactly what had happened. Should the House not be informed, as well as all the television viewers? I knew what had happened, and I supposed that everyone else did—

Hon. Members: Tell us!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me deal with those points of order. The House is asking me to be helpful and I shall endeavour to do so. When the House suspends in a few moments' time, papers will be made available in the Vote Office that will explain what we will do when the House resumes. The House will resume in approximately one hour—an hour at the most—and by that time papers will be available to all Members that will explain what we are trying to do.

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I think that I have dealt sufficiently with points of order. We must move on.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
	That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of Mr Peter Hain and the consideration of any Lords Messages and Amendments that may be received may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Derek Twigg.]
	Question agreed to.
	Sitting suspended, pursuant to Order [10 November].
	On resuming—

Criminal Justice Bill

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to acquaint the House with the fact that a message has been brought from the Lords as follows: the Lords insist on certain of their amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill and disagree to certain Commons amendments, for which insistence on disagreement they assign their reasons. They propose certain further amendments; they agree to certain Commons amendments; they did not insist on certain of their amendments. Under the order of the House of 18 November, any message from the Lords relating to the Criminal Justice Bill will be considered forthwith, without any question being put.
	Lords Amendment: No. 32

David Blunkett: I beg to move, That this House does not insist on its disagreement to the Lords amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will convenient to take the following: Lords amendments Nos. 32E to 32L; Lords amendment No.33, Government motion to insist on their disagreement thereto, Government amendments (a) to (j) to words restored and Government consequential amendment (a); Lords amendment No. 34J; Lords amendment No.121, Government motion to insist on their disagreement thereto and Government amendment (a) to the words restored; Lords amendments Nos. 126 and 131H and Government motions relating thereto and Government amendment (a) to the words restored.

David Blunkett: Before addressing the amendments and propositions before us tonight, I reiterate what the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the President of the United States have said outside the House about the terrible bombings that occurred in Istanbul today. Our hearts go out to the families and friends of the consul general and of all the staff and civilians who were killed. This reiterates the terrible threat that those who are prepared to bomb, kill and maim others are dealing out to innocent people across the world.
	Despite the knife-edge nature of the debate on the Criminal Justice Bill, not least over the last 48 hours, we are on the edge of getting a flagship Bill that I think most people in the House would agree has considerable and notable agreement across the parties in terms of the benefit that it will bring in transforming the well-being of people in our constituencies and the respect that they have for the criminal justice system. That can only be a good thing. To protect people from thuggery, organised criminality and the disruption caused to the justice system that we have experienced and debated over the last few months has to be the right thing to do.
	We want to provide sentences that match the seriousness of the crime, to ensure that life means life, to avoid the double jeopardy rule which, under new DNA and forensic science, would have allowed criminals to go free even though we could prove that they had committed the most horrendous crimes, to have the new sentencing guidelines council, and the involvement of the public, as well as those engaged in the criminal justice system, in shaping sentencing for the future, involving imaginative new sentences—including intermittent sentences, custody minus and strong community sentences—that underpin more severe sentences for dangerous criminals. I mention all those things because I believe that, despite the acrimony that we experienced on Tuesday and yesterday evening, we shall now have a modernised criminal justice system fit for the 21st century.
	More than 98 per cent. of the measures that we put to the House on Second Reading have been agreed, and many changes that have improved the Bill have been agreed without acrimony in the two Houses. Over the last 48 hours, additional amendments have been introduced and have gained consensus. Despite the provocation offered earlier in relation to the shadow Leaders of the House, I do not intend to respond to it. The provisions that have been taken over the last 48 hours in relation to avoiding the intimidation of juries and ensuring that we have clear and understandable procedures for dealing with bad character, and the way in which we shall respond tonight in respect of juveniles, have made the Bill a better measure, and a better vehicle for taking forward the intentions of both Houses of Parliament.
	Tonight, I want to take up the challenge of a final agreement, which has been reached between the political parties in the House, and hope that we can take things forward. It is important to have achieved that because, in addition to the measures that I have already enunciated this evening, tackling gun crime head on and dealing with those who misuse vehicles as tools for killing people in circumstances that have horrified Members of the House indicate the significance of reaching such an agreement.
	I have consulted with the spokespeople for the two main parties. I have not been able to reach agreement yet with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), who forms almost a party of his own on these issues, although I know he has been consulting regularly over the last 48 hours with the Opposition parties, so he will be familiar with the issues that we have been debating. [Interruption.] I am sure that, as has rightly been pointed out from a sedentary position, we will secure measures to avoid his intimidation, just as we have with juries.

Patrick Cormack: Is the Home Secretary aware that the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) is a dab hand at the monologue? He will be producing one at a concert in February. The Home Secretary had better look to his laurels.

David Blunkett: I have heard a few monologues in the House, never mind the poetry that always comes from the retiring Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). I thought I had already said au revoir to him, but I say it with great spirit tonight because this is his swan song in the shadow Home Affairs brief.
	We secured agreement in relation to bad character on clauses 96 and 93, but we are tonight linking it to securing agreement on clause 101, which relates to juveniles. I am proposing—in the spirit of agreement, I think this is an improvement—that any juvenile who has committed a crime would not be subject to these amendments and these proposals unless the crime was of a sufficient nature to warrant being reintroduced. In other words, it would have to be an indictable offence, which, by its very nature, would be severe enough for it to be introduced.
	On Tuesday afternoon, most people in the House would have gathered from the debate my overwhelming enthusiasm for clause 41. I remember my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) questioning me on it. My demeanour and my robust defence must have given her the impression that Lord Justice Auld's enthusiasm for that measure was not entirely shared by those on the Front Bench. In that spirit, I have been prepared to concede that clause to get agreement on the remaining clauses this evening.
	In the same spirit, we have also been prepared to discuss clause 42, having secured clauses 43 and 45. Clause 42, as the House will know, dealt with the issue that we debated on Tuesday—serious fraud. People will be aware of the Roskill and Auld proposals. Roskill, of course, preceded the operation of the Serious Fraud Office. We have adduced that it would be very sensible indeed if, given the controversy that has arisen over clause 42, we were able to secure agreement in a way that joined us together in finding a solution for the very, very small number of cases in which there is a major problem in securing a jury, and securing the retention of the jury, as well as in being able to secure the confidence of the SFO that, in taking such cases, it could secure a conviction where one was rightly warranted. It will, in other words, secure justice.
	First, in moving to a single judge sitting alone we are prepared to have to secure the consent of the Lord Chief Justice. Secondly, we are prepared to agree that we will not implement the proposals set out in clause 42, as amended, while we seek an improved way forward that does not rely on a single judge sitting alone.
	During the debate, proposals in relation to how specialist advice and support might be offered have been made, including measures drawing on a specialist range of expertise for a jury. On Second Reading and again on Report, I said that I was not against looking at such measures, so I find no difficulty tonight in offering the opportunity to the two main Opposition parties working with the Attorney-General, the Serious Fraud Office and the senior judiciary to take a further look at how that might be taken forward. We are able to look at that in relation to the SFO in a way that Roskill could not. In that light, I will not press for implementation of the clause. I am prepared to offer an affirmative resolution, should that be required.
	I am prepared to do that because of two pieces of legislation: the draft corruption Bill, which we have been scrutinising, and a measure in relation to domestic violence, crime and victims that will be in the Queen's Speech next Wednesday. That, together with the measures on multiple offences that we discussed across the Dispatch Box on Tuesday, will give us the opportunity to secure an improved provision that will provide the safeguards that Members have sought without giving way on the principle that we should not undermine the task of the SFO in bringing criminals to book who are engaged in serious crime, which has eluded many past efforts.

Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary knows that his statement on this issue is welcome. Some of us have argued for a long time that for serious fraud cases there should be an alternative to the conventional jury, which keeps the principle of jury trial. I seek a public clarification from him, which I have asked for privately. Is the it implication of his remarks that, as a result of the Bill passing into law tonight, there will not be any serious fraud trial by a single judge in England and Wales?

David Blunkett: I am prepared to give that undertaking. It is part of the agreement that we will retain the clause, but move forward towards looking at the alternative solutions that I have mentioned and that could be incorporated in one or other of the two measures that have either been consulted on or will come before the House in the Queen's Speech. That safeguard is appropriate. I give a binding undertaking that we will follow that agreement.
	This legislation has been difficult to achieve because of the way in which the two Houses have, rightly, had to scrutinise detailed measures, many of which have been subject to the scrutiny of those whose primary background lies in the law. Many of us whose background does not have been concerned to ensure that we secure for the British public a set of proposals that maintain our commitment to a safer, more secure Britain in which the law seeks truth. Parliament seeks to ensure that justice is done, and we are better equipped to enable the police to do their job, the courts to secure justice and the legal profession to join with us in ensuring that it is truth, not just pyrrhic victory, that is gained in such trials.

David Cameron: This is the third time that the Government have attempted to change the jury system. Will the Home Secretary pledge to leave it alone for the rest of the Parliament?

David Blunkett: I have given all the pledges that I am going to give tonight, including a pledge not to leave alone, on clause 42, the question of how we will deal with the jury system. I thought that I had indicated that we are prepared to look positively at the proposals to be brought forward, so I had better not give a commitment that reverses the pledge that I have just given in case I am accused of duplicity. Many Members of the House would disagree with what I say, but my honour remains intact, and I have every intention that it should.
	I invite the House to return the Bill to the Lords with the changes that we have proposed; I invite the House of Lords to hold to the agreement that we have reached tonight; and I invite the British public to rejoice, along with those of us who are somewhat exhausted by what has been going on in recent days. I thank the Officers of the House and those who have worked this evening, over the two hours since agreement was reached, to put together the papers. We appreciate what they have done in recent days and in difficult circumstances. I thank, too, Members of the House for their tolerance and forbearance—even the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), whose interventions on Tuesday rightly earned me a rebuttal and a slap on the knuckles from the sketchwriter in The Times for being my usual, irritable self.

Dominic Grieve: I join the Home Secretary in extending our condolences to the family of the consul general and the other members of staff killed in Istanbul in an absolute outrage. All Members of the House will unite with the Home Secretary in extending our thoughts to the Turkish Government and all who have had relatives killed or injured in the incident.
	This is, thank goodness, the end of a long process in which it has been a privilege to participate, although I have to say to the Home Secretary that there were one or two occasions in the last 72 hours when I began to think that it had an endless quality to it. There is, of course, much that is good in the Criminal Justice Bill. I remember so well the Home Secretary, in introducing the measure, indicating that what he really wanted was a measure that would stand the test of time and be accepted irrespective of which party was in government. I say to him that it was in that spirit that we participated with the Government and other parties in trying to achieve a workable Bill.
	It should come as no surprise that at the end of that process there were outstanding issues that caused serious difficulty, and for the most part I welcome the way in which the Government approached the process of debate and discussion that enabled those matters to be whittled down. That said, I cannot escape the fact, which is perhaps inevitable in these matters, that as one gets closer to the end, so the Moloch of the Government's grinding-down machine starts to come into operation. It is greatly to the credit of my friends in the other place, Lord Kingsland, Lady Anelay and Lord Hunt, that they and others resisted that pressure consistently so that we could arrive at the end at an outcome that protects the principles of jury trial. I very much regret that the Government, perhaps not in the person of the Home Secretary but certainly in the person of the resident of No. 10 Downing street, seemed to be so hellbent on cavalierly undermining those principles.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend note that the advantageous alterations about which we heard this evening have arisen because of the detailed discussion of the Bill, clause by clause? Does he agree that the rest of our legislation would be much better served if the same careful consideration were given in this House and the House of Lords, instead of constantly being excluded by guillotined Bills?

Dominic Grieve: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. On this Bill, the Government Whip went to great trouble, despite the mischief of the guillotine, to make available adequate time for scrutiny. Inevitably, when we came to the final stages of the Bill, all of that tended to go out of the window. It is only because those in another place can do the job of scrutiny at leisure that we were protected from implementing legislation that would have been extremely harmful.

Edward Garnier: I do not want to be unduly critical because I have already been critical of the Home Secretary, which obviously caused him some upset. Perhaps my hon. Friend misspoke. The House of Lords dealt with the Bill not at leisure, but thoroughly.

Dominic Grieve: The other place has the leisure to deal with legislation thoroughly. The problem in this place is that we are constantly hurried, to the point that amendments were being so rushed today that they appeared in the wrong place on Order Papers and nobody knew whether they had been passed in another place. We should reflect on that.
	As the House knows, matters have centred on trial by jury. I am delighted that clause 41, with its dreadful option of giving a defendant an opportunity to apply for trial to be conducted without a jury, so undermining the essence of the jury trial system, has at long last been abandoned by the Government. The credit for that goes to those in all parts of the House who finally persuaded the Home Secretary of the error of his ways. I pay particular tribute to the hon. and learned Members for Redcar (Vera Baird) and for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), who argued the point so forcefully.
	On clause 42, which deals with fraud trial, there has been a bit of an argument, which has gone on a long time. It was the final argument in respect of the Bill. I do not wish to revisit that. I should prefer to go home and remember in my dreams the sotto voce imprecations that I remember hearing from the Home Secretary during the debate earlier this week, some of which were directed at me and some at my hon. Friends and other hon. Members. That will be a good memory.
	The Government have had to climb down totally on clause 42, and have come up with a face-saving formula to mask what they had to do. I thank the Home Secretary for applying sufficient pressure on the Prime Minister to allow him to do that, as I am strongly of the view that that is where the mischief came from that prevented us from resolving the issue days ago.
	With regard to the double lock mechanism, which means that the measure can never be implemented without an affirmative resolution of both Houses, I have two comments to make to the Home Secretary. I know from my colleagues in another place that they will shortly make it clear that they will not be bound by any constitutional convention whatsoever in respect of the statutory instrument mechanism. In addition, under no circumstances will they allow the measure to pass through the other place unless or until it is part of a total package of reform that is acceptable to this House in exactly the same way as any primary legislation.
	I also say sincerely to the Home Secretary that we accept that this may be an area that requires detailed scrutiny and examination, and we undertake, if he comes up with proposals, to work with him to examine any representations made by the Serious Fraud Office that justify any departure from current practice. The Home Secretary will be aware that, in Committee and on Report, it was the Opposition who tabled proposals that might allow for specialist juries in such cases. However, one thing is clear. We shall resolutely uphold the principle of jury trial. I said previously and I say it again: I do not wish to live in a country where jury trial is denied to those charged with serious crime, and I will work night and day to prevent that from happening if the Government ever do it again.
	I hope very much that in any further examination of these issues the Government will adopt a slightly different approach on consultation from what we had in the Bill. It was unfortunate that the proposals crept in as they did.
	We have had to consider other areas, and here I can say much kinder things to the Home Secretary. I want to thank him for the way in which he has approached the whole issue of jury tampering. He knew at the outset that we supported the principle that it was essential that it should be possible to do justice where juries were being tampered with, and I hope very much that we have come to a final conclusion on that which, while there are areas about which I have reservations and anxieties, will prove workable and fair. I thank him and his colleagues in the Home Office for the way in which they have approached that matter, because I always felt that we were able to have a completely constructive dialogue on it. I particularly thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins). He has behaved impeccably during the Bill's passage and I have particularly enjoyed negotiating with him.
	In respect of the other outstanding matter, which was bad character, we were broadly supportive of what the Government were trying to achieve. I am left with a note of regret that I still do not think that it is as good as it should be. I am constantly reassured by the view of the hon. and learned Member for Medway that it will not make a blind bit of difference because the measure is pretty unworkable and the judiciary will have to sort it out. I am not sure that that is a good way to legislate, but we have a better outcome than I feared at the outset.
	May I ask the Home Secretary two specific questions? He knows that the main mischief in this proposal was clause 96, and I should like him to confirm to the House that, despite the inclusionary presumption, it will be for the prosecution to establish that propensity evidence is relevant to the issue in any case. I believe that Baroness Scotland previously did that, but I should like to hear from the Home Secretary that that is indeed what will happen. Secondly, I should like to hear from him a confirmation that the prosecution will be required to give notice that, through any line of questioning to the defendant, they intend to raise an issue under section 96(1)(b).

David Blunkett: I am very happy to give the assurances on both counts, and I am also happy to give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that our lawyers disagree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and think that the measures will make a substantial difference, and I would not have moved them if I did not think that they would.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his comments.
	I should like to finish with one other observation. As I said, the Bill has been a long one. I believe that it may do good, but looking to the future, I come back to the basic principle—our desire to see justice done for victims, to prosecute criminals successfully and to punish them properly must never allow us to undermine the principles of fairness that have made our trial system a model of its kind in the world. I hope very much that the Home Secretary, who has constantly said that he believes in the principles of jury trial, will continue not only in what he tells us here, but in what he does in his office, to uphold them.

Graham Allen: I should like to take a couple of minutes of the time of the House to make a couple of points, one of them general and one brief. The general point is to give a strong welcome to the Bill and to recognise the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his team. The Bill will be deeply welcomed in areas such as mine, where we are attacked daily by antisocial behaviour. Some of the measures that have been introduced are long overdue and I wish to put on record my thanks to him for the way in which the matter has been pursued.
	My specific point is to thank all the parties that were involved in the Committee stage of the Bill for their open-minded efforts in trying to secure a sensible sentencing guidelines council—an aspect of the Bill that has not been remarked upon to any great extent. We are in a position in which the judiciary, this House and the Executive almost seem locked in a constant battle as to what the appropriate sentence is for any given offence. I hope that the efforts that people from all parts of the House put into that work to try to get a well-balanced sentencing guidelines council will be taken further. I believe that we are halfway there in getting that broad-based council. It will be a great achievement if all three arms of the constitution are finally represented on it, perhaps next year or the year after, so that decisions on sentencing can achieve a broad-based consensus throughout society.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are debating the amendments rather than Third Reading.

Graham Allen: I welcome the amendments that we are considering, which do not include the question about drug testing at 14, to which I would have referred if it had been in order to do so.
	I put it on record for my right hon. Friend the now Secretary of State for International Development and hon. Members from all parts of the Committee that some great progress has been made. I thank the Home Secretary for what he has done today.

Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary was kind enough gently to mention that, possibly to the great relief of the Government, this may be the last Home Office Bill for which I am responsible in the near future on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I have been very happy to have that responsibility for the past four years, and I say sincerely to the Home Secretary, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), and their now Cabinet colleague, the Secretary of State for International Development, that there has been a successful method of co-operation throughout the Bill in terms of extreme courtesy and a continuing ability to have dialogue with Ministers. I pay tribute to them as a team. Of course, we have had differences of view, which have sometimes been very strong, but the Home Secretary and his team, as well as Baroness Scotland and her colleagues in the Lords, have worked hard to ensure that, where there could be maximum agreement, it has been achieved.
	I wish to give other inevitable thanks, but I am extremely happy to do so. First, I thank the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and his successor, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), as well as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who has served on the Bill throughout its passage. He and his colleagues in the Lords, whom he has mentioned, together with colleagues such as the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who, like me, slaved on the Committee day in, day out, have contributed hugely both from experience and principle to make this a much better Bill.
	Last, but absolutely not least, there is my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and my four Lords colleagues, who did a huge amount of work—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address his remarks to the amendments.

Simon Hughes: Baroness Walmsley, Lord Dholakia, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Roper worked over the past three days, as they worked with us previously—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have asked the hon. Gentleman to speak to the amendments.

Simon Hughes: My colleagues in the Lords equally worked on the amendments and their drafting and participated in meetings and negotiations in a way that has delivered us with the changes that are before the House.
	I shall make a couple of comments on the remaining matters that have occupied us over the past few days and led to the amendments that we are considering. We were left with two substantive matters when the Bill left the Lords on Monday night. We were left first with the question of character and whether any bad character of a defendant could be brought back into play. I tell the Home Secretary that the answers that he gave to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and the statement on the record in both Houses give us much more reassurance that the principle that a person is presumed innocent until proved guilty will be protected. That must be a fundamental principle of English law because, if changed, it would do away with one of the things that gives people most confidence in the system.
	The matter that has occupied us most is whether to keep jury trials. We are grateful to the Home Secretary for accepting that clause 41, which would have meant that people could have elected out of jury trials for serious offences, could go. The clause would have produced a two-tier system. We are grateful that the Home Secretary and his colleagues were able to work with us to ensure that only in exceptional circumstances after jury nobbling could there be a move away from jury trials.
	The most difficult measure was the subject of the negotiation that went right up to the wire this evening. We insisted that even in serious fraud cases, there must be a trial before a jury. We hugely welcome the Home Secretary's reassurance that clause 42 will not be implemented, the safeguard of the order subject to the affirmative resolution in both Houses and the prospect of getting a variant of jury trials that will work in such cases.
	We have dealt well with the intimidation of juries, but I hope that the amendments will show three other things that will send a message from this place. We have stood by the independence of the judiciary, we have reaffirmed the independence of the magistracy and, above all, we have reaffirmed the primacy of juries. Today has been a good day for Parliament—and both Houses of Parliament—because both Houses have worked to ensure that the amendments that will finally be agreed tonight will uphold those three principles of the English justice system. We have done that part of our work well. We are right to be proud of that and our constituents who go to court in future will be grateful that if their case is serious, they will have a jury to judge them. That principle has stood the test of time for 800 years and this Parliament will uphold it today.

Vera Baird: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the amendments and the calibre of the Bill, which will fulfil the functions that he set out to make it fulfil and update and toughen up the criminal justice system. He has always said that trial by jury was not under attack by him at all but that he meant always only to strengthen it by ensuring that it was protected from abuse, especially by hardened criminals who would try to tamper with its functioning. Clause 43, when amended, will satisfactorily ensure that it will be better protected than it has been in the past. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary assured me recently in the House that it would be a last resort to remove a jury from such a trial and the amendments that he is making to the clause will make that position even clearer, so I congratulate him on that.
	Clause 41, which will be removed from the Bill, would have allowed an opt-out on jury trials but was never central to my right hon. Friend's purpose, as he perhaps conceded tonight. The greatest and cleverest of us are frequently bedevilled by the law of unintended consequences. It is a great tribute to him, although I am not sure that he accepts them at their fullest, that some of the horror stories that have been put forward as possibly following from the clause are truly realistic. None the less, it is a great tribute to my right hon. Friend that he has acknowledged others' concerns. It has not been his main purpose, but he has been ready to relinquish the clause for the sake of caution and prudence.
	As my right hon. Friend well knows, there were two real concerns. The power to put previous convictions almost automatically into trials was a real worry. That has been well moderated by linking the power more closely to relevance. It will be a more effective provision and a fairer one as a result of the amendments that have been agreed to.
	I move on to clause 42 and fraud. I reject entirely any suggestion that there has been any climbdown by those on the Government Benches. The clause remains in the Bill and, in due course, it may come into operation. If there is to be a further examination of it, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not ignore Labour Back-Bench Members who have taken a close interest in the clause.
	As one of those who has taken such an interest, and one who combines the role of being a lawyer with being a dutiful and certainly a hard-working Member, I am extremely interested in protecting my constituents from the adverse effects of crime. I say to my right hon. Friend that there is no conflict between those two roles. It is the firm intention of lawyers who are Labour Back-Bench Members to fulfil both roles properly. I congratulate my right hon. Friend. He has shown appropriate resolution with appropriate flexibility. It is now a good Bill.

Edward Garnier: I had not intended to speak because it is late and people want to go home. However, the Home Secretary mentioned me by name. I am sorry that I irritated him to such an extent that he was put to reading The Times, which clearly tickled him.
	The shadow Home Secretary in 1993, the current Prime Minister, said during the course of the debate on the Runciman royal commission on matters similar to this:
	"Fundamental rights to justice cannot be driven by administrative convenience."
	I hope that that is something that sticks with the Labour party to this day. I have had my doubts over the past few months as we have discussed the Bill. However, here we are, and a Bill and an arrangement seem to have been arrived at.
	The Home Secretary said that he wanted the Bill to be part of the modernisation of the criminal justice system, and he hopes that it will lead the way to a criminal justice system fit for the 21st century. I leave him with two thoughts. Perhaps we could stop passing Criminal Justice Bills every year and allow the system to bed down a touch. Those of us who have the enjoyable duty of attending Judicial Studies Board courses at regular intervals find ourselves being laughed at by those who are judges but not Members for allowing extraordinary numbers of Bills to go through that alter the system pretty well every other Wednesday. At the same time, we have the tiresome duty of having to learn it all up, which is not everybody's joy.
	If the Home Secretary wants to do one thing to modernise the criminal justice system, I ask him to consider, if nothing else, that criminal law legislation needs to be codified as soon as possible. That would do all of us a great deal of good. The right hon. Gentleman might even provide himself with a monument that would be worth looking to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 32E to 32L agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 33 disagreed to.
	Government amendments (a) to (j) to the words so restored agreed to, and Government consequential amendment (a) agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 34J agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 121 disagreed to.
	Government amendment (a) to the words so restored agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 126 disagreed to.
	Government amendment (a) to words restored agreed to.
	Sitting suspended, pursuant to Order [10 November].

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to acquaint the House that the House has been to the House of Peers, where a Commission under the Great Seal was read, authorising the Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Water Act 2003
	Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003
	Courts Act 2003
	Ragwort Control Act 2003
	Extradition Act 2003
	Sexual Offences Act 2003
	Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003
	Criminal Justice Act 2003
	Transas Group Act 2003

Prorogation
	 — 
	Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech

Mr. Speaker: I have further to acquaint the House that the Lord High Chancellor, one of the Lord Commissioners, delivered Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of Her Majesty's Command. For greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy and also directed that the terms of the speech be printed in the Journal of the House. Copies are being made available in the Vote Office.
	The Gracious Speech was as follows:

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: My Government has taken action in support of major programmes of reform in the priority areas of crime, health and transport.
	My Government is committed to reforming the criminal justice system, to deliver justice for all and to safeguard the interests of victims, witnesses and communities.
	An Act has been passed to provide the police and other agencies with effective tools to tackle anti-social behaviour.
	Legislation has been passed to reform sentencing arrangements and to modernise criminal procedures to protect the public and reduce re-offending.
	An Act has also been passed reforming the courts system. This will allow Magistrates' Courts and the Crown Court to work more effectively together under a single organisation and will reform the system for enforcing fines and other non-custodial penalties.
	Legislation has also been passed modernising the laws on sexual offences, strengthening the framework of penalties for sex offenders to protect the public.
	In addition, legislation has been passed improving international co-operation in tackling serious crime, including terrorism and modernising the arrangements for international mutual assistance to prosecute criminals.
	My Government continues to modernise the delivery of healthcare based on the founding principles of the National Health Service. Legislation has been passed to introduce incentives to ensure that hospital discharges are not delayed and that those needing community care are fully supported.
	Legislation has been passed to devolve power and resources to frontline staff, giving greater patient choice and more freedom to successful hospitals while increasing their accountability to local communities and introducing independent health and social care inspectorates.
	Legislation has been passed to improve the delivery of local services through better financial management and greater freedom for councils.
	An Act has been passed to improve railway and transport safety, establishing a Rail Accident Investigation Body with effective evidence-gathering powers, reforming the body responsible for regulating the railways and introducing alcohol testing on board maritime vessels and in civil aviation.
	Draft legislation has been, brought forward on a number of matters including civil contingencies, housing, nuclear liabilities, corruption and mental incapacity.

Members of the House of Commons: I thank you for the provision you have made for the work and dignity of the Crown and for the public service.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: My Government continues to work closely with the political parties and the Irish Government to secure the full implementation of the Belfast Agreement. Legislation has been passed which establishes an Independent Monitoring Commission to report on the ongoing commitments connected with the implementation of the Belfast Agreement. An Act has also been passed amending legislation on policing in Northern Ireland.
	My Government maintains its commitment to devolution in Scotland and Wales. Legislation has been passed reforming the provision of health services in Wales.
	Legislation has been passed providing for the holding of referendums in any English region except London on the establishment of elected regional assemblies and other preparations for the implementation of elected regional government.
	In addition, legislation has been passed to create a new regulatory framework for the communications sector to promote competition and investment, establishing a new regulatory body, implementing European Union telecoms directives, and reforming rules on media ownership.
	An Act has been passed modernising and streamlining the law governing premises selling alcohol, providing public entertainment and late night refreshment, including important measures for tackling anti-social behaviour.
	An Act has been passed allowing the Secretary of State to specify the pay, terms and conditions of the Fire Service and to direct the Fire Service on its use of facilities and assets.
	Legislation has been passed improving water management and conservation, establishing an independent Consumer Council for Water, reforming the regulatory system for water and promoting competition in the water industry.
	An Act has also been passed providing for the development of a strategy for reducing the amount of biodegradable waste going to landfill and help ensure the UK meets its climate change commitments.
	Other important measures have been enacted.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: The Duke of Edinburgh and I were pleased to receive the state visit of His Excellency the President of Russia in June. We are pleased to receive the state visit of His Excellency the President of the United States this week.
	My Government has played an active role in combating the global threat from terrorism and preventing the development or use of weapons of mass destruction by hostile states. My Government has worked to help publish and implement a Road Map for peace in the Middle East, and to support the rebuilding of Afghanistan.
	My Government took part in international action to ensure Iraq's compliance with its obligations under UN resolutions. Iraq is now on its way to a better future, free and at peace with its neighbours. Political and economic reconstruction are proceeding apace and for the first time in Iraq's history it has government institutions which reflect the diversity of its people and uphold human rights and the rule of law.
	My Government helped secure the lifting of UN sanctions against Libya following the latter's compliance with the demands of the Security Council, and has supported international negotiations with Iran and North Korea,
	My Government was active in ensuring the decision of the European Council last December to issue formal invitations to ten countries to join the European Union in May 2004. Legislation has been enacted to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Accession Treaty with the new member states.
	Through the Convention on the Future of Europe and the subsequent Inter-Governmental Conference, my Government has participated actively in efforts to agree a new Constitutional Treaty for the European Union to equip it for the challenges of enlargement.
	My Government published its assessment of the Five Economic Tests on whether to recommend entry into the single European currency.
	My Government helped achieve agreement at the NATO Summit last November to invite seven countries to join the Alliance, and has continued to support these countries in their preparations for membership.
	My Government was heavily involved in the continuing development of the European Security and Defence Policy, including the conclusion of agreements between the EU and NATO for the use of NATO assets and capabilities for European Security and Defence Policy military operations. My Government supported, and British personnel participated in, the first three European Security and Defence Policy operations: a police mission in Bosnia and military crisis management operations in Macedonia and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
	The Millennium Development Goals remained at the forefront of my Government's commitment to global poverty reduction. My Government has worked with partners in the UN, the G8 and other bodies to make progress towards these goals, particularly by ensuring support for developing countries' own plans such as the New Partnership for Africa's Development.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may attend you.
	A Commission was also read for proroguing this present Parliament, and the Lord Chancellor said:
	"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: by virtue of Her Majesty's Commission which has now been read, we do, in Her Majesty's name, and in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Wednesday the twenty-sixth day of this instant November, to be then here holden, and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Wednesday the twenty-sixth day of this instant November."

CORRECTION

End of the Second Session (opened on 13 November 2002) of the Fifty-Third Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in the Fifty-Second Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.
	28 October 2003: in column 218, Division No. 340, in the Ayes, leave out Naysmith, Dr. Doug (Bristol, North-West).